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

New section on "police surveillance and informants"

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

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

The new intro looks good as far as I'm concerned. I would agree with Southofwatford on the separation of the surveillance and police informants as independent and unconnected facts. I also agree that the question of surveillance is why it didn't work, and why intelligence sharing apparently wasn't very well implemented, even almost 3 years after the 9/11 attacks demonstrated the dire need for such cooperation. I see no problem with clarifying the original source of the guardian editorial piece. Parsecboy 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this El Mundo piece printed by the Guardian also makes a completely unfounded assertion - there is absolutely no evidence other than hearsay/wishful thinking that says the Asturians had ever sold explosives to ETA. The Spanish police have said that ETA do not buy their explosives from common criminals, they tend to either steal it themselves or when they cannot do that they have "homemade" recipes. Southofwatford 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. Please fix.--Mantanmoreland 17:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the Guardian quote from the main text. Unfortunately I had not gone to the Guardian itself and did not know that it was an opinion piece by an editor of El Mundo, and needed to be identified as such and not as being said by the Guardina. However, I think that generally the quotes in the references should be moved up to the main section. The footnotes are too long, and have quotes and information that should be placed int he body of the text.--Mantanmoreland 14:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the new section to the Controversies page - I think that is where it belongs. It still needs some work but I have put everything under the same heading on whether the bombings could have been avoided for the moment. I have also added new, but brief, introductions to the sub-articles on Controversies and Reactions to the bombings. On the footnotes I think the quotes should be removed so that we use a standard format for all footnotes - whether the quotes should be included in the main article should perhaps be discussed on a case by case basis, some of these quotes are extremely unrepresentative of the article from which they are drawn. Southofwatford 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I can see not having it in the first few paragraphs, but removing from the article entirely strikes me as going too far in the other direction.--Mantanmoreland 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it hasn't been removed from the article, it has been placed in an appropriate sub-article together with other issues that have provoked controversy. The problem is that otherwise we will be splitting controversies into two, with some issues in the sub-article and others in the main one. The result of that will be to make the Controversies article virtually worthless. I personally believe that there are other issues already in the sub-article that are equally if not more worthy of the attention that the police informers issue has received. These are sections that can expand rapidly and end up dominating the main text, bear in mind that the section on the trial may be small at the moment but also has the scope to become larger as developments emerge. Doing things this way leaves us the possibility of having the main article for relating events, which I think is what most readers would want to see before being plunged into discussion of whether the fact that two people were police informers has any bearing on the case. Southofwatford 06:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you edit, Southofwatford. See rationale at User_talk:Southofwatford#POV_edit.Randroide 13:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section should remain. This material belongs in the article, but in an appropriate place.--Mantanmoreland 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove this section

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

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

I thought it was wrong to have stuff about informants and surveillance in the very opening paragraphs, as that skewed the article and gave a kind of innuendo. But surely it is important enough to belong in the article at an appropriate place. Right now it is down at the bottom. Omitting it from the article entirely is overkill. Remember that if this ever goes to arbitration, unreasonable edits get counted against you.--Mantanmoreland 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not omitted anything - I moved it a sub-article of the main article where controversial issues are dealt with. I didn't make any change to the content of the section. Southofwatford 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with removing entire sections to that subarticle, leaving nothing behind.--Mantanmoreland 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately if we don't do that then what gets left behind either expands where the other section doesn't, or becomes a parallel and different version. Also, we end up without narrative flow in the main article, one of the principal problems that it now has. Southofwatford 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a genuine danger, but there are ways to guard against that.--Mantanmoreland 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You can avoid it in situations where there is general agreement on where things should go and the overall structure of the article - we do not have that situation here. Southofwatford 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

True there does not seem to be agreement on anything. But there is actually less edit warring than I would have expected.--Mantanmoreland 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Plase read Wikipedia:Content forking, Southofwatford. Randroide 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is soooo repetitive Randroide, read it yourself - at no point have I suggested parallel articles on the same subject, in fact my comment is precisely against that sort of thing. Please read properly other editors comments before responding, otherwise it is disruptive of an otherwise constructive discussion. Southofwatford 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Congratulations to Maussili Kalaji !

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

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

• If you disagree about the format, please reformat the text, but without deleting sourced information, as you did.

• This section does NOT belong in "Controversies", for the same reasons I gave yesterday to Southofwatford (vide supra).

• I am open to place the block of text about Kalaji in any please in the article you see as better than the current one. But the reference about Kalaji is NOT "Controverial", for the reasons cited above.

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

Randroide : The facts are not controversial. What is controversial is the undue weight you are giving to some of the facts.

Everybody : I want to sugest that we stop speaking about controversies and start we speaking about conspiracionist. The things that must be placed in a sub-article are the conspirationist (or alternative) accounts of facts. I think two articles (main and conspiracies) should be enough.--Igor21 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Randroide, the section was fine before you rewrote it. Bullet points are not acceptable Wikipedia style as the entire content of a section such as this, and you added (and overemphasized via the bullet points) excessive detail that gave undue weight to minor personages. Thus your changes were entirely unacceptable and were a nonstarter as POV pushing. The issue is not that what you added was "sourced" but that it was excessive, was POV pushing and unnecessary detail that belongs in the separate article.

I opposed removal of this section entirely, as was done previously, as overkill [1]and the same description applies to your edits.--Mantanmoreland 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We are dealing with an editor who simply refuses to engage in proper, reasonable discussion about this article, and whose only response to anyone who disagrees with his partisan use of this page as a propaganda platform is aggressive misuse of Wikipedia templates to try and intimidate other users. It is tiring and unreasonable to have to deal with someone who behaves in this way. An editor who behaves in this way is not entitled to make demands of any others. The section is completely POV and it is even arguable now whether it is fit for the controversies page - NPOV also applies there. Southofwatford 16:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To Mantamoreland: Please check the whole range (left, righ, center, Spanish, American...) of different sourced facts you deleted. Please: Do it.

No, no: Stop reading and do it.

You did it?. Right: You deleted NOT minority views, but mainstream sources. And lots of them.

Moreover: Current section is a mess of sources without facts, with no order, no hierarchy and no nothing. Maybe acceptable for the introduction, but not for a sub-section.

I do not want to engage into an esterile edit war, so, please, improve the section in a way you like, but do it, and using the sources you deleted.

You also deleted information about two indicted for the bombings: Names, what they (allegedly) did, biographical tidbits... just in case you failed to notice.

Please take a careful look at your deletion, because I think that you are not really aware about the kind of bad, bad edit you did.

I am awaiting for your proposed text. Randroide 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We keep talking past each other on this. The point is not the sourcing, it is the content. You added excessive details on specific police informants, highlighted in boldface and bullet point. The amount of detail about each of these informants (one was "schizophrenic") was absurd, and was blatant POV-pushing.

You were also told that your first section was comprised entirely of bullet points, and as you also were told, summary style is preferable. Using bullet points gives undue weight to facts that are secondary and in some instances utterly trivial. The fact that the sources of those secondary/trivial facts is reliable is beside the point. Read the policies and stop violating them. I am not going to keep repeating myself.--Mantanmoreland 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine: Delete the bullet points, delete boldface, write it in a format you like.

The notability of this man being a schizophrenic has been stablished by sources, not by you or me. We do not decide about notability.

Do you think that those facts are "trivial". OK, sources think otherwise, and sources call the shots here.

Do you think that giving the name of the Indicted and what they (allegedly) did is trivial?. Sources think otherwise.

You deleted a lot of sources, and blanked a lot of facts. I am waiting. Randroide 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding biographical detail on a couple of the accused does nothing to make the section NPOV - such details do not belong in this section - these people are not just police informants. I will (reluctantly) accept keeping this section in the main article provided that it is not abused as a POV section on attempting to insinuate police involvement in the bombings without providing necessary proof of such involvement. I await a convincing argument on why the cashier from Carrefour should not be alongside "the Spanish policeman" - after all I have sources too, I just resist using them as a pretext to push my opinions. Threats are not an acceptable substitute for argument Randroide. Southofwatford 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The section is a compromise, and either expanding it or eliminating it would constitute POV pushing. The details requested by Randroide belong in the separate article that was created, so long as it is fairly presented and does not constitute a POV fork. The mental state et al of the police informants definitely does not belong in the main article. --Mantanmoreland 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The details blanked by you are NOT controversial, so they do not belong to "Controversies". Please understand this now to avoid troubles in the future.

I invite you to write your alternative text for this section. If you choose to do not do it in 24 hours, I will rewrite a new section with no bold text, no bullet points, a summarized text and no mention to Trashorras mental illness, if mention to that fact is such big problem. Randroide 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

First, don't refer to my editing as "blanking." I removed material that did not belong there. Secondly, I see no need for alternative text. Thirdly, let's not get into semantics over the Controversies article. If you don't want to put it there, it is your prerogative. Trivia about the police informants does not belong in the main article.--Mantanmoreland 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The confidents were key perpetrators in the attacks: It is a sourced fact.

2. Editors do not define what is trivia and what is not: Sources do it.

3. You edit certainly was "blanking", but I am not the one to be arged about this point.

4. Thank you for your fast response about you not going to write the alternative text.Randroide 19:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In your text, you cite one Spanish-language source to substantiate that Trashorras was a police informant. You then build around that the other, largely irrelevant details. Your use of the phrase "necessary cooperator" could confuse an English-language person to believe that he was described as such because he was informant. "Cooperator" is a synonym for "informant" in the English language. I trust this was an innocent error. The CNN report that used that language did not refer to Trashorras as an informant. The amount of detail you are laying in there is such blatant POV-pushing that it requires no further scrutiny, but I am not at all convinced that this "informant" stuff is properly sourced, at least insofar as this defendant is concerned. As this is a living person, and since "informant" is perjorative term, extra care must be taken. WP:BLP.--Mantanmoreland 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote some constructive criticism. I will source better the "Confident" claim ASAP.

"necessary cooperator" are not my words, but CNN´s (see source 79 84 after the addition of new sources). That´s the reason for the commas.

I am not at all convinced that this "informant" stuff is properly sourced, at least insofar as this defendant is concerned. As this is a living person, and since "informant" is perjorative term, extra care must be taken.

The same can be said about the "Islamist" condition of many individuals, sir.

The CNN report that used that language did not refer to Trashorras as an informant.

So what?.Randroide 07:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Just added 5 new sources sourcing the confident condition of Trashorras. Randroide 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I agree. As I said previously, there is an innuendo to this "police informant" stuff that is inappropriate and is in danger of skewing the article. It needs to be mentioned, but should be placed in the proper perspective and not given undue weight. It is clear from the weight of sourcing that this was an Islamist plot, not a police plot.--Mantanmoreland 11:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• The innuendo, if any, it´s in the sources.
• With all due respect: It is clear that you need to read more sources, Mantanmoreland. That last line of yours shows that you have not had enough hours of reading about this subject. Being able to read Spanish also helps to see the whole picture. Randroide 07:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Related articles

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

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

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

September 11, 2001 attacks provides a good model of what I am talking about.--Mantanmoreland 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about that nice column at the right?: "Timeline, Victims...". Randroide 16:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not specifically. I was talking about the disambiguation links throughout the article.--Mantanmoreland 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ehrrr...those "see also" "main article" links?. Yes of, course that could be a good idea for 2004 Madrid train bombings. Randroide 12:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that.--Mantanmoreland 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Eliminitating inuendo and non related facts

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

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

OK everybody. Randroide has restored the inuendo twice today. He is calling me vandal and threatening me. If I remove inuendo once again I will go into 3R. If I do not, the article will continue being skewed as it is now. Any ideas? --Igor21 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets deal with the easy bit first - either Randroide provides a specific sourced allegation showing that Kalaji is something more than just the owner of the shop where the phones were taken to be liberated, or Mr Kalaji has to lose his celebrity status and the references to him in this article. Because he is otherwise just one witness in almost 700 involved in the case and there is no rational basis for him to appear anywhere else than in a list of those witnesses. I have already had to deal today with one example of Randroide imagining Kalaji's involvement on the AVT article - I'm afraid we need more than imagination to maintain him here. The rest is more complicated - can we make this section more rational without extending it too much? There are clear signs emerging in the trial of some police incompetence - the Guardia Civil handling of the leads on the explosives issue - this can be sourced from the accounts of the trial. This mixing of all issues to try and insinuate something bigger than incompetence or lack of resources either needs to be properly substantiated - or dropped. Southofwatford 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Solved: I segregated Mr. Kalaji from the section. Are you happy now?. Randroide 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randroide : Stop restoring inuendo. Try to read the following rules that, amongst many others, you are breaking most of the time : wikipedia is not a soapbox, undue weight and wikipedia is not an unestructured amount of garbaged information. Stop threatening me by improperly using wikipedia templates in my talk page. --Igor21 13:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What you call "innuendo" are sourced facts, Igor21. Plase stop deleting sourced facts or you´ll be blocked. And please read WP:CENSOR. Randroide 13:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Inuendo against Spanish police

This is a dispute about if the article must include inuendo about Spanish police being the perpetrator of the bombing as user Randroide is forcing by all means.14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a dispute about if, under the light of WP:CENSOR (PARODY: hey!, under my POV this Kalaji stuff is "innuendo", just throw these sourced facts into the Memory hole and no problemo), the article must include references to Maussily Kalaji, cited in relation to the bombings (and yes, he was, back then, a Spanish policeman) by many sources. Just see a pair of googlings about the issue General Googling Search narrowed to sources in English, or just see the refences cited in the section under dispute. Randroide 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

All the sources took as a whole say that was a bombing perpetrated by Islamist extremists. User Randroide thinks that was the Spanish police who organized the bombing and is using cherrypicked sources out of context, outdated or both to push his ideas in the article. He has destroyed the section about police negligence and created a new one about a third rank character loosely linked with the bombings (one amongst 700 witnesses called in the trial) --Igor21 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests, Randroide refuses to give us his reasons for insisting on giving Mr Kalaji a prominent position in this article. Kalaji is just one of several hundred witnesses who have been callled to give evidence in the trial, he has not been accused of any participation in the preparation or execution of the attacks. Randroide has already been forced to rectify the completely false accusation that he armed the bombs in another article , yet still insists for reasons unknown that he should be given prominence in this article. In my opinion, Kalaji should not appear anywhere except in a list of witnesses - should it ever be felt necessary to have one. The attempts to mix together Kalaji together with other information on police informants and surveillance does nothing to clarify the issues - but then we are dealing with attempts to insert conspiracy theory material suggesting that the police were somehow involved in the bombings, without of course any solid evidence backing such an accusation ever being provided. Southofwatford 15:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The reasons provided by Randroide over and over again (see above in this page if you have enough patience): Mr. Kalaji is cited by many sources related to the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Randroide 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Spanish police was negligent in many ways and this must be commented but has become imposible because Randroide is forcing by brute force his conspirationist theories. --Igor21 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not a single "conspiracy theory" in tne article. You are lying.
• Please do not talk about "Brute force" after this string of edits of yours (see from this section to below in the page): User_talk:Igor21#You_removed_10_sources_in_one_single_edit.Randroide 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The facts, by Randroide

• Not a single "conspiracy theory" in the article. Not a single one.

• Not a single unsourced statement in the article.

• Editor´s thinking about this and that is irrelevent, only sources count. Igor 21 does not get this basic fact.

• The section about the third rank character was asked for by Igor21 [2], and now he groans and moans about this man having his own section. That´s chutzpa man!!!.

• To name Mr. Kalahi a third rank character is Igor21´s peculiar POV. Sources talked a lot about this individual (see sources at the section). Please read what Igor21 said about NPOV:

"Open your eyes, Wales is objectivist and takes Rand´s crap as a coherent philosophy. It is sad, but revealing about where he finds his epistemological rubbish about his definition of NPOV" SPANISH

This is the Wikipedia´s foolishness. It is clear that some sources are more credible than others, but NPOV won't allow to remove lying sources and forces to publish them with the others. SPANISH

• Report about who is Igor21: User_talk:Randroide/IgSo#Igor21 , see also his repeated blankings at his talk page: User talk:Igor21.

Randroide 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)