Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings

• /Controversies about 11M-2004:Sources in english
• Controversies about the 11M-2004:Proposed article
• New proposed core article
• /Atelier 3: Sources not accepted by an User
• /Proposed additions

Chronological Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6

Moving Forward On The RFC

Southofwatford 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC) I will try either later today or tomorrow to suggest a wording for an RFC that covers all the issues in dispute where I think outside comment will be helpful - I will post my proposed wording here first so that everyone can comment on whether they agree with it for submission. I am not proposing to try and find a wording that is completely neutral because we could be here 3 months arguing about that - the key objective is to represent all points of view. It may even be a better idea to present separate RFC's for separate issues. All suggestions are welcome on what to include.

Proposed topics:

1). Treatment of conspiracy theories, ask for opinions on how they should be handled - whether the approach we have tried of separating them into a controversies article is a valid approach. Definition of what is or is not a conspiracy theory

2). Treatment of sources - The El Mundo issues, on what grounds might it be acceptable to reject sources, how do we treat sources that are involved themselves in developments on what they are reporting i.e. where the source forms part of the story

3). How to describe the perpertrators in the main article

---

Randroide 09:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Egyptian curse again. Seems it is our fate. Please define "conspiracy theory" to start talking with you about the issue.

2) Yeah, the same goes for Catalonian Nationalist media, "El País" and the SER (read:Suicidal terrorist in the trains) or the Indictment (read: Impossible self contradictory narratives).

3) We do not know who the perpetrators were were, so we can not "describe" them.

---

Southofwatford 09:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Well the simplest way to avoid the Egyptian curse is not to even try to find a wording that satisfies everyone, we put together a joint RFC but which contains a short statement on each issue from each editor who wants to contribute, describing their position. I also think it will be better to do separate RFC's on each contentious issue rather than mix everything together into one. That way I can talk about conspiracy theories, I still find the Wiki definition to be satisfactory, and you can talk about doubters or alternative explanations, or official versions. Then , as part of the process we can ask other editors what they think is the correct terminology.

---

Randroide 09:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Without a common wording we do not know what we are talking about. Communication is impossible. That´s the reason I do not employ any longer the "official version" expression, but the purely descriptive "Indictment". I suggest you to employ "doubters".

---

Southofwatford 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) On the discussion page or in an RFC we can both use the terminology we choose to use. In the article we need a common wording, and the best way is obviously to refer to things directly as what they are; El Mundo, the indictment, the parliamentary commission etc. But outside of the article I continue to describe a conspiracy theory as what I believe it to be. Those who accuse the Spanish government of colluding with ETA in organising the bombings are not doubters by any conceivable use of the word.

---

Randroide :

1)If you want to know what are conspiracy theories you can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories where you will find abundant information.

2)You said at some point that the difference of 11-M and the reason why we cannot apply the 9/11 pattern is that a major newspaper support the non-mainstream theories. So it is time to see if the comunity thinks that a single newspaper in a corner of the globe is enough to contradict the world class newspapers or if it only deserves the conspiracy theories article.

3)We do not know the perpetrators but we know that the mainstream of world class media asumes that they were islamists and that are the guys who are in prison accused and waiting for trial. El Mundo thinks that they are just innocent chaps so you can state this in the conspiracy (alternative) theories.

I understand that you have not found a solid evidence that world class media or any intelligence institution agrees in any way with El Mundo original lonely "investigations" and twisted revelations. Lets comunity comment how this mistery can happen (a world conspiration against El Mundo) and which treatment must give English Wikipedia to it. You are free to offer the thesis that "all the newspapers except El Mundo are written by the same hand" as you did above. --Igor21 10:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 10:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Look, Igor21: First answer my questions, and then I will answer yours. Thank you.

---

Randroide : I am not asking any questions to you since I perfectly know each single nuance of your position after the oceans of ink you regularly produce using your very well known squid tactics. I am stating my position regarding RFC. The answers we need are from the comunity to finally go out of this deadlock and proceed to a final version of the article that reflects the mainstream world class newspapers position, instead of the position of a single local newspaper (that is accusing living people and existing institutions of the most horrible crimes without any evidence except non-confirmed revelations and carefully worded insinuations).--Igor21 12:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 08:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Here is my suggested wording for the introduction to an RFC on the issue of how to handle conspiracy theories. What I propose is that each editor who wants to can attach their own personal "position statement" to the RFC, a short (1 or 2 paragraphs) summary of their opinion on this issue. This should not be seen as an opportunity to debate points made by other editors, any attempt to use it in that way means that it will not work. The aim should be that any outside editor reading the position statements gets a basic introduction to the different positions.

My proposed introduction statement: We invite comment from other Wikipedia editors on a series of issues which are holding up editing of the article on the 11th March 2004 Madrid train bombings. These issues have all been discussed at length on the article Talk page, to avoid confusing different topics we will deal with them in separate RFC’s. One of the main issues has been how to deal with “alternative explanations” or “conspiracy theories” surrounding these events (we are not even able to reach agreement on the terminology to use to describe these). An attempt has been made to separate the discussion of such theories into a new “Controversies” article, but this process has run into problems because the editors involved have not been able to agree on the line of separation between a straightforward neutral account of events, and the new controversies article. Below are position statements from the different editors involved in this discussion – we welcome all contributions and suggestions on how to handle this issue.

---

Southofwatford 10:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Here is my position statement - I count 279 words and I suggest we impose a voluntary limit of 300 words for each editor statement so that those who read the RFC are not overwhelmed by pages of text. Let me emphasise again that no statement should attempt to reply to that of another editor, if that starts to happen I withdraw my support for submitting an RFC.

In my opinion we are dealing here with an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for a political campaign. The conspiracy theories about the Madrid bombings accuse the current Spanish government of acting in collusion with ETA, and occasionally other agents such as the French or Moroccan secret services, in an attempt to remove the previous government from power. These theories have not arisen spontaneously from the work of intrepid investigative journalists; they are the result of a planned campaign involving supporters of the previous government and media groups whose motives are a mixture of the political, commercial and possibly personal. The serious accusations made by the conspiracy theorists are not backed up by positive evidence, the objective of the whole campaign is to try and insinuate and suggest government and ETA involvement by casting doubt on the judicial investigation which forms the basis of the forthcoming trial, expected to begin early next year.

In an attempt to accommodate this campaign, I have been in agreement with the proposal to create the new controversies page. However, I do not accept any equivalence between the conspiracy theories and the account of events which emerges from the judicial investigation; largely because the conspiracy theories do not stand independently on their own merits – they depend almost entirely on finding supposed faults with the judicial investigation. I believe that we should be able to present these theories within the political context that has produced them, and make clear their origin. In my opinion the main article on the bombings should include a short reference to the controversies and direct readers to the new page – and need include nothing else on the issue.

This would be my text : The key issue here it is not that the theories are completely unbelievable but the fact that all the international press ignores them. My idea is that it is imposible to construct a narrative that blends the point of view of the mainstream of intelligence services and world class media with the point of view of the conspirationists. So both things must be separated and the question is if we present the reason for these theories to exist which can be perfectly sourced or we limit to allow conspirationists to state whatever they want in their separate article. BTW, I do not think that controversy exists since is largely a unilateral discussion. Mainstream world society knows that was an islamist bombing and the small Spanish local group of conspirationist are not really answered except in wikipedia were they think that they deserve half of the space forcing other editors to argue endlessly what is the accepted truth and what are theories supported only by a minority of local media (minority even in Spain not to say worldwide).--Igor21 17:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC) My provisional RfC statement:

1. Allegations made by different media (spanish, british and american) about the shady and unclear issues around the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings belong in Wikipedia by simple application of Wikipedia policies.

Those sources belong because those allegations fit perfectly under WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, WP:REF and WP:NOR. Trying to expel those sources from the article would be a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV.

• 1.1.My spanish sources are the second and fourth spanish newspapers: "El Mundo (Spain) and w:es:La Razón (España)[1]"

• 1.2.My american and british sources for the same issues can be seen at here. Those sources are National Review, Times Online and The Guardian.

2. The doubters of the Indictment are a very wide spectrum of people supporting very different possitions.

• 2.1.The "softer" doubters (among them Pedro J. Ramírez) only point to allegued inconsistencies in the Indictment, avoiding the enunciation of any "alternative theory" about what happened.

Is up to my detractors to prove the opposite, and such proof does not exist. All their rantings about "conspiracy theories", without a single source provided, are simply a bag full of air.

El Mundo (Spain) investigations are "soft" doubters, and, by mere application of the definition, it is totally incorrect to call them "conspiracy theories", because they do not try to explain the "ultimate cause of an event".

• 2.2.Only the "harder" doubters ("Peones negros", for instance) expressely voice alternative theories about what happened (i.e., about if the bombings were perpetrated only by ETA, or by ETA and corrupt police officers, or by other countries secret services, etc)

Only the "harder" doubters could be called "conspiracy theorists", just as the Indictment could also be called a "conspiracy theory", if we apply consistently the definition of Conspiracy theory.

3. The Indictment and their supporting media are valid sources, but self-contradictory, incomplete, or simply unreliable.

This must be proved and explained to give full context for this issue: Without "El Mundo" and "La Razón" investigations the article would be POV, false and misleading.

Just some examples:

3.1. Falsehood uttered by a pro-Indictment source: The PRISA owned Cadena SER said on March 11th 2004 that three different sources assured to the SER that a suicidal terrrorist was in the trains. This lie proved later as a falsehood, but helped to change perceptions in those crucial hours (just before the election). *Source and quotation in spanish:"Tres fuentes distintas de la lucha antiterrorista han confirmado a la Cadena SER que en el primer vagón del tren que estalló antes de llegar a Atocha, iba un terrorista suicida"[2].

3.2. Falsification perpetrated in the Indictment: A reference to ETA was deleted from a spanish police report by a spanish police chief [3].

3.2.1. The reference to this report was erased with Tipp-Ex correction fluid [4].

3.2.2. The policeman who made the falsification is accussed by a judge (thanks God there are still decent judges in Spain) [5].

This coverup was uncovered thanks to "El Mundo" investigations.

3.3. Self Contradiction in the Indictment:

3.4. We do not know which explosives went of in the trains. May sound incredible, but it is true. The spanish judiciary Indictment is like an Indictment about someone killed by shooting without a ballistics report.

Pedro J Ramírez (see quotes) asked in july 2006 for the official report about the analysis made the day of the bombings, and that report does not appear. Ask about that report to my adversaries. My sources are the only spanish sources that think that the allegued nonexistance of that report is a grave cause of concern.

---

--Larean01 11:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia does not attempt to characterise sources as reliable. That is up to the good faith of the editors. It is simply false that Wikipedia compells the use of a source just because its claims are in print or because of readership. As I mention repeatedly, The National Enquirer iGs NOT a reliable source, but it fulfills your criteria for a reliable source. You have not offered any counterargument to this.

2. It is false that the doubters are a wide spectrum of people supporting different positions. They are all anti-PSOE (antigovernment), usually virulently so, and are also politically close to the PP. On the contrary, the critics of the "doubters" do come from all sides of the political spectrum, with a majority of them being on the left.

2.1 To call Pedro J. Ramírez a "soft" doubter is disingenous. He has been on record several times saying there is little or no doubt that Police forces tampered with the evidence. Now, that IS a conspiracy theory, among other things because there is not a whiff of evidence for that claim.

2.2 You still have to explain why the indictment is a conspiracy theory (and El Mundo's distortions aren't!). You always ignore my arguments, going back to square one, repeating your arguments in your own particular version of Groundhog Day.

3. It is very disingenuous to try to dump together all the "pro-indictment" sources and try to blame all of them for the mistakes or manipulations of one of them. That is called "guilt by association" and it is a well-known fallacy. In particular, it is ridiculous to try to cast doubt on a judicial indictment because of the sins of a radio station.

Please, Randroide. If you do not answer my arguments this time I will start to think that you are not interested in a fair article, but in furthering your personal beliefs and political agenda.

---

--Larean01 19:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have checked extensively how this kind of dispute is solved in Wikipedia. In all the familiar cases where there is an overwhelming majority of the relevant community of experts (be it scientific or judicial) that widely agree on a theory/factual explanation, that theory or explanation is given in the main Wikipedia article. "Alternative" (i.e. conspiracy) theories proposed by outsiders (meaning people outside the community of experts) are given much lesser attention, and are usually put together in a single section and/or in a secondary article. As far as I can see this applies to evolution theory, JFK assasination theories, 9/11 and even more controversial subjects, like global warming.

I contend that the main article cannot be reduced to an account of undisputed facts, as one of the editors wants to do. This will make the article bland and uninformative, as few relevant aspects have not been challenged by conspiracy theorists. I also contend that neither the main article nor the Controversies article can give "equal time" to both sides. The judicial account of a crime, put together by the Police forces and the tribunals of a working democracy, must take precedence over biased and inaccurate journalist accounts. Giving equal time to 11-M conspiracy theories would be tantamount to giving equal time to creationism in an article about evolution theory.

The sources quoted by conspiracy theory proponents are suspect and do not meet Wikipedia standards in that they are not reliable WP:Reliable_sources. They can be shown to be factually wrong, self-contradictory, pursuing a political agenda and failing most relevant deontological journalism principles. They can be shown never to admit, correct or withdraw a factual error. The fact that they have a wide circulation is immaterial to their reliability. So do the National Enquirer or The Sun

Conspiracy theorists are making very serious accusations against living people without any evidence, running against the conclusions of the largest and most thorough criminal investigation in Spanish history, and against the accepted account held by all the police forces of the Western world, all of its political leaders and all major international news outlets. The only place conspiracy theories have in Wikipedia is as a social and political phenomenon, not as proponents of alternative and equally respectable explanations to what happened.

Lengthened intro

I lengthened the intro a bit, just mentioned that it was carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, not ETA, but that the early ETA accouncment by the government has been a source of much contraversy. I don't know much about the attacks, just noticed that the intro said nothing about who did it, or the election contraversy, so I read it and added a short version.

I was not 100% sure "losely ties" was really the relationship to the MICG, but that was the main impression I got from the article.

Also, it looks like your disputes on this article are about specific sources in specific subsections. Can someone please move the factual acuracy disclaimer to the specific etions which are under dispute? JeffBurdges 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The disputes are about who did it. There is a newspaper in Spain who says that was a conspiracy organized by Spanish police, ETA and the socialdemocrat party. Since in Wikipedia the sources are Holy, the conversation driffted to if a soucrce that says such a think can be considered a source -bearing in mind that international world class newspapers have completely ignored the possibilty of such conspiracy. Then we have a second area of dispute about the way that this theories must be reflected either 1)by mixing with the main text or 2)in a separate article written by someone who believes in it or 3)explaining why a group of people are doing what are doing inventing these theories. The discussion has reached a deadlock and we were preparing an RFC for help.

Regarding your change, I do not think is necesary to name the blaming of Mr. Aznar to ETA in the intro since is a local politics thing while the bombing is an international issue.--Igor21 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) JeffBurdges, please , read /Controversies about 11M-2004:Sources in english.

Who made it is a hotly disputed issue, and the "islamist" autorship it´s not clear at all. We are trying to move all controversies to a different page, and who made it is a controversial issue.

---

In reality these controversies are unilateral since everybody knows what happened and nobody seirous bothers to answer the inane allegations of the conspirationists. Only the special structure of wikipedia is forcing us to argue because Randroide pretends that that this page of links is legitimation enough to say that the conspirative theories can be sourced. Since the page do no grows, we must understand that this limited and not compromised eco is all that such scoop has received outside Spain : all in all nothing.--Igor21 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 18:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Igor21 wrote: Since the page do no grows...

By Jupiter!. He uttered that "argument".

Igor21 has the bad habit of not answering my questions (vide supra), but I will ask him a new question anyway: Igor21, could you please point us to the Wikipedia policy that requires "expanding sources"?.

Sources are sources, d**n it!!!. I got my international sources talking about the shady issues about the Madrid bombings presented by El Mundo (Spain) . A "forever expanding pool" of sources is not required in Wikipedia.

Moreover: The page does not grow because I made my point: The controversies appear in the international media.

I do not need to present "a new dissident source every week", just for Igor21´s kicks and jiggles.

---

Wikipedia does not require expanding sources but sufficient sources. Because everybody saw first time that your extremely short list of international media -only tangencially naming the issue- cannot be taken as "international media echoing or at least debating El Mundo "investigations"", we thought that you would make it grow before coming back with your claims. However, here you are again waiving the same clearly insufficient list.--Igor21 19:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 19:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Sufficient or insufficient by what standard?.

By Wikipedia standards it is what it is required: Sources in newspapers and Ma¡gazines. Your "thinking" about what is or is not sufficiente is totally irrelevant.

---

Ok. Son can we now please proceed with the RFC to see if the community thinks that a local Spanish newspaper contradicting all the planet and a handful of loosy references of "El Mundo says" in a couple of international media are enough or not to embark wikipedia credibility? Thank you.--Igor21 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ...a "handful" of references from, so far, the second and fourth spanish newspapers ("El Mundo" and "La Razón"), the "Gaceta de los Negocios" economics newspaper, the National Review, The Guardian and the Times Online.

---

--Larean01 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide: we have gone through this before. The second Spanish newspaper is probably between "Marca" and "As" (sports newspapers), not "El Mundo". And tabloid circulation elsewhere is no indication of quality reporting. Besides, your foreign sources DO NOT endorse conspiracy theories. They mention them, most of the time in a bemusedly critical way.

---

Randroide 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Hi, Larean. I was waiting for your statement to finish mine.

The second Spanish newspaper is probably between "Marca" and "As"

Sources, please. Your say so is not enough.

your foreign sources DO NOT endorse conspiracy theories

Do you really think that?. You must read all of them ,carefully. You are wrong. Yes, some are critical, but some are extremely sympathetical, like, for instance the National Review article.

It is a very sad thing to see adults wasting their time trying to present "El Mundo" as a tabloid.

---

--Larean01 11:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Source:

http://download.aimc.es/aimc/02egm/resumegm106.pdf

El Mundo is third after Marca and El Pais. If you include free press, it falls to the sixth place.

El Mundo in this instance acts as a tabloid. 100% as a tabloid. Its model is Charles Foster Kane, or William Randolph Hearst if you will. And it is even sadder to see intelligent adults wasting their time defending absurd conspiracy theories.

BTW, The National Review is a well-known politically-biased OPINION source.

---

Randroide 13:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Please, show me a single newspaper or magazine that is not politically-biased and does not include OPINION (ahhh...I copied this "opinion" from your latest post).

Thank you very much for the EGM study. It is very interesting and I learnt there what "La Razón" is NOT the fourth spanish newspaper. I was wrong about this issue. This is the good thing of working with rational and hard-working adversaries: You always learn new pieces of data.

Some issues:

• "Marca" is a sport newspaper, so it does not count but for Sports.
• Newspapers given for free do not count, they are like propaganda flyers in your meilbox. You could also start counting Jehovah's Witnesses publications and suddendly pro-Indictment sources circulation would suddendly look marginal.
• The EGM is notoriously anti-El Mundo [6]. I will try to find the OJD report.
• The EGM study you linked was published breaching an spanish judge direct order [7]. The non spanish reader may start to understand what kind of country is Spain where this things happen.

---

--Larean01 17:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned "Marca" in my first objection. You then asked for sources. I provided one. But the point is immaterial. I am VERY VERY glad that you acknowledge that some sources are not reliable because they are notoriously anti something. THAT is what Southofwatford and I have been telling you about El Mundo. Now that you acknowledge that reliability can be questioned, we can start moving forward in this discussion. For starters, prove that El Mundo is a reliable source.

P.S. Your last point is a non sequitur the size of the Andromeda galaxy. Disobeying a judge is about 100 trillion light-years from taking part in the conspiracies that you believe in.

Consensus offer

Randroide 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC) I offer to write this text under "perpetrators":

Radical Islamic Cell inspired by Al-Qaeda. Disputed by some media.

...this is much better than to say nothing.

...and much, much better than the unqualified and misleading Radical Islamic Cell inspired by Al-Qaeda.

Please Randroide, may I suggest that you stop beating around the bush and proceed with the procedure? Your tactics could be considered very clever somewhere but here are starting to be absurd since everybody know you and what are you evading from.--Igor21 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know. Please, tell me and tell everybody: What I am evading for?.Randroide 12:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the "Perp(s)" section

I am sorry, but I wish to let Admin know that when I noticed that the "Perp(s)" Section said "Unkowen" I attempted to change it to "Unknown Radical Muslim Terrorist Group" Because, let's face it, barring a few outlandish conspiracy theorists who still think that the Battle of Waterloo never happened if "Professor X" says it did not, it should be obvious that it was perpetrated by Radicalized Muslim Terrorists. However, for some reason there was no mention of the Perpetrator list when I got in, so I created it saying (|Perpetrator(s)=Unknown radical Muslim Terrorist Group). For some reason when I exited, the Perpetrator section vanished. I just wish to inform Admin about this and I am sorry about it. ELV (Unsigned intervention made by User talk:71.146.158.221, a.k.a. as User talk:71.146.133.208) Randroide 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly obvious and hopefully it will be possible shortly to state in the article but we must follow the procedure to get sure that the rights of outlandish conspirationists are not conculcated and their legitimate bizarre opinions are treated fairly. Please stand-by if you want to collaborate but be patient since we have here one of the most skilful conspirationists of the whole wikipedia and we expect some rabbits from the hat before truth can preside 11-M article. --Igor21 10:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While I do know that it is important to state the Perps but to also address the Conspiracy theorists, I meant this thread to note that the Perp(S) Section has vanished from the databox. I am sorry for accidentally doin this, and if I would be informed on how to correct this, I would but it back on the databox. ELV

Randroide 09:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) A tip, ELV: To sign type "AltGr" plus "4" fout times. I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?. The perps section was introduced without previous discussion and has been a continous source of disagreement. You should also explain me what do you mean when you talk about "Conspiracy theorists", because the Indictment is a conspiracy theory.

Apparently somebody removed it AGAIN! And this time it was NOT me. Also as to who I mean by conspiracy theorists, I mean some of the farther-out conspiracy theorists. I can understand perfectly SOME skeptcism, as from my review of the Basque terrorist's modous operandi, (speaking hypothetically here) had this been some of their handiwork, I would have had to say I would think that they went out of their way to make sure this was not placed on their doorstep, which is HIGHLY unusal for them, as usually they cannot stop gloating about their sick little "deeds." Do I put it past them? Not at all, it is just HIGHLY out of their usual operating procedure. Couple that witht the fact that the governmnet either a. Cannot ID one type of Explosive from another even in testing of the explosives (which I find VERY unlikely) or b. Lied about the explosive type used (which I find more likely.) What I meant by Conspiracy theorists (and yes, I may be only targeting the Extreme ones with this but oh well) the group that has gone around tossing all sorts of allegations around like A. A sympathiser to the Socialist Party of Spain planted it to discredit the People's Party political party, B. That a supporter of the People's Party planted the bomb to rally the nation around Anzar and the party, C. That English spies based in Gibraltar sneaked across the border and planted explovies to anger the Spanish against the Islamic Radicals and solidify Spanish-Allied relations, and I could go ON and ON, but you get the general idea. Kind of like the 9/11 "Truth" movement here in the US of A, a batch of people who agree that common sense is incorrect and that the Islamic Radicals were NOT responsible, but beyond that could not agree on anything else if their lives depended on it. And that is NOT an understatment in the least, if you look around the 03/11 and 9/11 Truth movement's websites. Also, I mentioned this before, but someone else deleted the Perp(s) section again.ELV

---

Randroide 19:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Sure, ELV. And it will be removed again, again and again. You must talk first about changes in the talk page.

---

• Randroide, I ask you with due respect that you either deliver a new text for the RFC or accept the one that you already delivered above. --Igor21 18:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Igor21, I think you'll find that Randroide has been too busy making fresh complaints to administrators about your behaviour to concentrate on the RFC - we'll have to wait a bit longer.

---

Randroide 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Working on my RfC, fellas, working on it. Please feel free to add counter rebuttals to my statements if you see it neccesary. I do not want to play with the advantage of being the last one writing my statement. Try to add the references I am challenging you to produce or ad counter rebuttals.

Igor21: If you write all your future messages with the tone of tour last one, things will go much better in this page.

---

Southofwatford 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC) No Randroide, I made it absoluteley clear, and more than once, that this way of doing things would only have my support if editors explicitly avoided using their statements to attack the positions of other editors. It is clear from your reply to Larean01 yesterday that you were waiting to be last. If you choose to try and use that to your own advantage then you end the process. An RFC has to be neutral, I proposed a way of achieving neutrality without spending weeks arguing over wording; if you do not accept the same way of doing things as the other editors then as far I am concerned the RFC process ends here. The days of one rule for Randroide and different rules for the others are over. Your statement should not be a reply to the others, it should be a statement of your personal position on the issue

---

Randroide 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Are you sure, Southofwatford?.

On user conduct RfCs, do not create "disendorsement" sections on RfCs. If you disagree with something someone else has said, you may add your own separate statement explaining why you disagree.Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment

Could you please point me where is the guideline saying that Your statement should not be a reply to the others?. This is not a rethoric question. If that guideline really exists, I must read it carefully to write a proper statement. So far, I have not found that guideline.

Southofwatfor wrote: It is clear from your reply to Larean01 yesterday that you were waiting to be last. If you choose to try and use that to your own advantage then you end the process.

Of course I waited to be the last, due to a very simple reason: I must know what this RfC is about, because you, Users defending the Indictment, are changing your mind from week to week:

• One month ago "El Mundo" was a good source (albeit with some issues about some specific articles) and we were working towards the creation of a "core" article.
• Nowadays "El Mundo" is not good for you, guys, and the "corefication" of the main article is no longer accepted by you.

---

Southofwatford 10:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Randrioide, there is no point in quoting Wikipedia rules on this issue, I never claimed that what you are doing is against the rules - you always do the same. Do not confuse the right to do something with the obligation to do it, they are not the same thing. I made it clear that my support for the RFC was based on a degree of good faith, that nobody would try and take advantage of this way of doing things. Not surprisingly, you have decided that you do want to take advantage of this approach - you have the right to do so but the consequence is that I withdraw my participation, and endorsement, of this RFC. If you can convince the other editors involved to support you, then present the RFC as a political circus - I am not participating on that basis and you will have to make it clear that you do not have the consensus of the editors involved.

---

Randroide 13:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford wrote: I made it clear that my support for the RFC was based on a degree of good faith

Good faith is supposed by default in Wikipedia, Southofwatford.

I must say the obvious: A Wikipedia RfC is a Wikipedia RfC, as defined in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment, not as defined by the wishes of User:Southofwatford.

You can do as you wish. I will follow the guidelines presented in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.

If the other users want to adjust their statements after seeing mine or to add further commentaries, they are completely free to do so: New data or new arguments lead to new statements. For instance: Larean just teached me that "La Razón" is NOT, as I wrongly believed, the fourth spanish newspaper, so I must rewrite my statement.

---

Southofwatford 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Fine, I leave it in your hands. I withdraw my position statement from the RFC, you should make it clear in any RFC that you present that consensus between involved editors was not achieved.

---

Randroide 14:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Yes, you are right: Consensus was not achieved in submitting to User:Southofwatford wishes about what Southofwatford would like to see and to do not see in the RfC. Consensus was not achieved because Southofwatford withdrew from the RfC once I pointed him that I am going to follow Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.

Nonetheless, I invite Southofwatford to come back to the RfC, but under Wikipedia guidelines, not under whises and whims from this of that User.

---

Southofwatford 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Well given that you have rejected the only proposal for structuring the RFC that was on the table, there is currently no RFC for me to come back to. I believe my proposal complied with the rules which you are busily waving in everyone's face - as is your custom. You have not demonstrated that it breaks any rules at all, but because you insist on having a special advantage unavailable to other editors you have prevented it from proceeding. Given this situation, the onus is clearly on you to present a counter-proposal which complies fully with the rules, both for you and for everyone else. If you find a way to do that which still leaves you in a privileged position then I will be very interested to see it. But until you or someone else makes a proposal I see no RFC.

---

Randroide 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I never said that you proposal did not comply with the rules, you said that mine did not. I am currently finishing my statement: I cite external sources, so my work is harder than yours. Please, be patient.

---

Southofwatford 07:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC) The issue of whether your statement is harder than anyone elses has no relevance. You have rejected the only existing proposal for wording and structure of the RFC. So until you or someone else proposes an alternative wording and structure there is little point in you continuing to work on your statement. I welcome your clarification on the rules and my proposal, I never said anything at all about your proposal because I haven't seen a proposal from you; all I have seen is your standard lecture on the ``rules``. I still see no RFC.

---

Randroide 09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Look carefully for mi proposal above , please, in the Moving Forward On The RFC section. It is the only text thas uses big font. You can´t miss it. I must still check some references, so I stablished to myself the deadline to finish it on this sunday, so please be patient.

So until you or someone else proposes an alternative wording and structure there is little point in you continuing to work on your statement

You are wrong: There is no need for consensus in the wording for the RfC statement, so I will continue to work happily in my statement.

Write what you thing is proper and, please, stop asking for an unnecessary consensus.

---

Southofwatford 09:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Well I must be missing something because the only text I see with large font is that inside your proposed statement - the proposal for the RFC structure cannot be this statement. As for the wording of the RFC I can only assume that either you haven't read the rules on wording the RFC, or you imagine - as is often the case - that the rules do not apply to you; "Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the article talk page with a brief, neutral statement of the issue" I am asking you for a proposed structure and wording for the RFC given that you have rejected the only proposal that has been tabled, consensus is necessary on the way to present the RFC. I am not talking about the content of individual editor statements, so lets see if you understand me this time. I am not going to waste my time writing anything else at the moment because you never know when another user may pop up and just reject the whole idea. I still see no RFC.

---

Randroide 09:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I beg your pardon, Southofwatford, I thought that you were talking about individul editor statements. Now I understand you.

This is my RfC brief, neutral statement of the issue, i.e. your previous statement with a modification.

We invite comment from other Wikipedia editors on a series of issues which are holding up editing of the article on the 11th March 2004 Madrid train bombings. These issues have all been discussed at length on the article Talk page, to avoid confusing different topics we will deal with them in separate RFC’s. One of the main issues has been how to deal with “alternative explanations” or “conspiracy theories” new newspaper articles about those events presenting new points of view. An attempt has been made to separate the discussion of such theories into a new “Controversies” article, but this process has run into problems because the editors involved have not been able to agree on the line of separation between a straightforward neutral account of events, and the new controversies article. Below are position statements from the different editors involved in this discussion – we welcome all contributions and suggestions on how to handle this issue.

• "Alternative explanations" is misleading: My sources do not point to "alternative explanations", only to allegued shortcomings and impossibilities in the current explanation.
• "Conspiracy theories" is POV.

---

Southofwatford 10:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC) It is simply not true or neutral to say that it is just about newspaper articles or "new" points of view. It is about accusations that have been made that the current Spanish government was involved in the bombings, my wording doesn't state that openly because I looked for neutrality but your's is just an open pretence. I reject this wording, but at least I don't wait until everything is almost ready to go before raising my objections - have you only just read my proposal this morning Randroide? I still see no RFC.

---

Randroide section and Randroide answer: No vandalism, Filtered access

Randroide 11:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Please paste this whole new section at the bottom of the page. I can not do it without my filtered Internet access truncating other users words. Thank you.

Section reserved for Randroide´s use, to avoid automatic truncations of text created by Randroide´s access to Internet.

Southofwatford wrote: Randroide, you are responsible for all modifications that result from your edits, any changes to other users comments without their consent and without rectification of the change is clearly vandalism.

Assuming good faith, I will think that you, Southofwatford, did not read this explanation I gave previously [8].

• To avoid this problem, you could change your words for "non sensitive" words, not truncated by my Internet filtered access, because there is nothing I can do about this issue right now.

• Another option is to answer to your questions from this section, reserved only for my exclusive use to avoid further automatic truncations of text.

As you wish. I apologize for this nuisance.

Southofwatford wrote: I've got a better one than that Randroide - there are people who actually believe that ETA and the Spanish government organised the bombings together, along with the help of the Moroccan and French secret services, and that the Spanish government are out to who know the truth! Really, I'm not making it up!.This bit will really make you laugh - the same people who organised the bombings (the government and ETA together, remember) killed some North Africans, froze their bodies - put the frozen bodies into the flat in Leganés and then blew it up to make it look like a suicide. Yes, I know its a crazy theory, but people truly believe it.

Interesting. If you can source all that, you can add all that stuff to a future Conspiracy theories about the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, because there is no proof for all that claims you wrote.

BTW, I never tried to introduce that kind of stuff into the article. If you are suggesting that I did, you are beating a straw man.

---

Southofwatford 12:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC) The words which your bizarrely selective server is removing are not especially unusual, I have no way of knowing what words it will remove in the future. If you use a server that removes other people's work then it is your responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen. You didn't say or do anything to rectify this, either the first or the second time.

I am not proposing to include the crazy stuff that we see on the Black Pawns blogs in the article, so there is no issue there.

As for straw men, where did I ever suggest that you tried to introduce this stuff in the article. You've created a straw man to try and suggest that I am doing the same - or perhaps it was your server?

---

Intro Perpetrators proposal

In the box "perpetrators" we write "Multiple", with an intrapage link (#Perpetrators) to the "Perpetrators" section, whre we develop the whole (complex) issue:

• What the Indictment says about who were the perpetrators: Moroccans, Argelians, spanish police collaborators (v.gr. Suárez Trashorras)[9], policeman (v.gr Kalaji)[10], the 34 over 40 allegued perpetrators being controlled by the spanish security forces or working for them [[11]]...
• The many claims for the bombings made by different gropus. There were 3 or 4 different vindications made by different islamist groups. Maybe Larean know this issue better than me. It can be researched.
• The different information available, and the narrative of the ETA-Islamists shift in the inmediate aftermath of the bombings, and the new data that has been uncovered afterwards.

• The al-Qa'ida autorship has been disproved:

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.[12]

This is a complex issue, that can not be dealed with a few words in an info box.

---

Southofwatford 12:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Here we go again! Absence of evidence for Al-Qaeda authorship does not disprove anything. It just means you can't assert that they were the authors - not the same thing at all. Let's substitute ETA for Al-Qaeda and see whether you draw the same conclusion - does the total absence of evidence linking ETA to the bombings disprove their participation in the attacks in your opinion? Lets's see how the conspiracy theorists double standard applies in this case. Because all those suggestions and insinuations of ETA involvement are not evidence of anything.

I made a perfectly rational suggestion for the perpetrators based on the presumption of innocence for those accused, but recognising that a formal accusation has been made. Making that equivalent to speculative attempts to link other agencies and organisations is not the same. As usual, you are seeking to turn the main section of the article into a billboard for the controversies page by inserting links into it at every opportunity. I still reject that suggestion, the controversies should be a secondary article clearly linked in one place from the main article

If it cannot be dealt with in a small box then remove the box, I seem to remember making that suggestion too.

---

Randroide 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote: Absence of evidence for Al-Qaeda authorship does not disprove anything. It just means you can't assert that they were the authors - not the same thing at all. Let's substitute ETA for Al-Qaeda and see whether you draw the same conclusion

• Al-Qaeda authorship correction: I Agree. Yes, you are right and I was wrong. I did not pay the required attention to the exact meaning of my words: You can not prove a negative and so on. Thank you for your opportune episthemological correction.

• ETA authorship: I Disagree. There are more inconclusive clues pointing to ETA than pointing to Al-Qaeda (zero, so far). From the (in)famous Trashorras backstreet "coincidence" to the report linking ETA with the Madrid bombings that former spanish police chief (and current PP European Parliament member), Agustín Díaz de Mera, says that does exist, but carefully stored and locked El Mundo articleInterview with Mr.de Mera.

Southofwatford wrote: As usual, you are seeking to turn the main section of the article into a billboard for the controversies page by inserting links into it at every opportunity.

The link I proposed was an intrapage link, not a link to Controversies about the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings.

The assertion that the man who alleguedly provided the explosives for the bombing was a spanish security forces collaborator and that the man who freed the IMEIs for the cards of the bombs is a spanish policeman is not "controversial": Those facts are in the Indictment.

Southofwatford wrote:I am not proposing to include the crazy stuff that we see on the Black Pawns blogs in the article, so there is no issue there. As for straw men, where did I ever suggest that you tried to introduce this stuff in the article. You've created a straw man to try and suggest that I am doing the same - or perhaps it was your server?

You say that you are not proposing to include that stuff, and you also say that you were not suggesting I tried to include that stuff. Great. Then, please, explain me what was your purpose writing that text.

Southofwatford wrote:I have no way of knowing what words it will remove in the future. If you use a server that removes other people's work then it is your responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen. You didn't say or do anything to rectify this, either the first or the second time.

I have no way neither.

If you think that it´s so important to write your messages beneath my messages (you refused my previous solution for this issue writing in "my" subsection) and want to avoid any further (infinitesimal, one truncation in hundreds of postings) possibility of automatic truncation in the future, there´s a very simple (alternative) solution: Write you next text above the subtitle I provide below, and copy-paste the subtile at the bottom in any new section not opened by me.

---

Southofwatford 11:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC) So now you are citing a report which isn't even proven to exist as evidence of ETA involvement? Please, invisible sources are not very credible - and the word of PP politicians on this issue is hardly a neutral source. On the subject though, perhaps the papers which the PP removed when they left office would shed some light on the issue? They removed (or destroyed) all documentation on the bombings in government offices and it truly amazes me that El Mundo and all the conspiracy theorists never seem very keen to ask where that documentation is - surely it would be so helpful in helping to reconstruct what really happened?

---

Randroide 20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Former spanish police chief says that the source exists,and, yes, he is an spanish policeman. So please stop saying the nonsense that the Indictment is "supported by the spanish police".

Please apply your prudent rule about PP politicians (I do not trust them neither) also to PSOE politicians, including to the current Minister of the Interior Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba.

And, talking about invisible sources, where are the reports about the explosives that went off in the trains?. Pedro J. Ramírez asked for those reports in july, and we know nothing about them, i.e., we do not know which explosives went off in the trains. Please, tell me where is that invisible source.

PP allegued destruction of documents issue: Source that and add it to the article. I am not going to oppose. All sourced statements belong in the article.

Do you accept my RfC proposal?. I must know to know if I must finish my statement or not?.

---

Southofwatford 09:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Again the double standard of evidence that the conspiracy theorists apply could not be more evident. If I said on this page that an ex-policeman converted in PSOE politician had claimed a report exists linking the bombings to Al-Qaeda you would laugh at my pretensions that that counts as evidence of anything. Evidence is data, facts - why don't you ask the relevant questions about this alleged report. Has he seen it? Did he see it before he left the police? If he hasn't seen it how does he know it exists? If he did see it before leaving why has he waited 2 years to mention it? How do we know that the report he refers to isn't the famous boric acid report?

In fact Diaz de Mera has done the minimum necessary to comply with his political duty, he has made an insinuation of ETA involvement over 2 years after the bombings without producing one single fact or piece of data to establsh any real relation between ETA and the bombings. So of course nothing he has said can be challenged. You would be better off asking him about the Leganés operation Randroide, he should know plenty about that but I am not aware of him having much to say on the subject that helps the conspiracy theorists. It just demonstrates what I have said repeatedly, for the faith based reasoners the standard of proof necessary for ETA involvement in the bombings is non-existent because they want it to be true, for anyone else's involvement the standard of proof demanded is very high.

I suspect that if a 200 page report were produced tomorrow demonstrating beyond all doubt the use of Goma2-ECO in the bombs on the trains, neither you, Pedro J Ramirez or Luis del Pino would change their minds about anything. All this stuff about "wanting to know the truth" is just a smokescreen for a political operation - how else can we explain this lack of interest in seeing the documents removed or destroyed by the outgoing government. This documentation would give us absolutely vital information about everything that happened in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, touching on many issues that form part of the conspiracy theorists allegations. Yet is is nowhere to be found - and neither Randroide, El Mundo or the Black Pawns have anything to say on the issue, no visible interest in demanding to see documentation that would be of such obvious utility. Why Randroide, tell us why?

I have already replied previously on what you describe as your "proposal" for the RFC. My description gave alternative options for describing the conspiracy theories in an attempt to achieve neutrality, your proposed description creates an artificial and non-neutral description of what we are dealing with. As usual you seek a position of advantage in everything, my proposal rejected that, and I continue to reject that. However, I am not going to spend weeks arguing on the wording because I don't think it is worth it, and I am not going to veto your proposal. If you get agreement of other editors to present it then fine, I will comment as an "external" editor - I only maintain my insistence that any RFC presented without consensus should make that fact clear.

---

Answers to Larean

Larean wrote: When I ask you direct questions of what you claim and why, you always dodge the questions.

I claim that several reputable sources had disputed the Indictmet narrative and conclussions about the Madrid bombings. The Indictmet is not "a fact", but only "an interpretation of the facts", because other interpretations had been published in reputable sources. To abide by NPOV rules all sources should be used to write the article. That´s it.

Larean wrote:You still have not explained why the indictment is a conspiracy theory

Because attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations (see Conspiracy theory)

Larean wrote:In particular you consider that if a source is anti-something it is not to be trusted

All sources are "anti-something" and all sources must be taken cum grano salis. I am not here saying that PRISA sources should not be used, despite their shameless lye about the "suicidal terrorists".

Larean wrote:you have failed to argue why I cannot quote The National Enquirer as a source to prove alien visits to the Earth or that Elvis is alive, but still I can quote El Mundo's outlandish claims concerning 11-M conspiracy theories

Because the NE is a tabloid with no reputation and no sources.

"El Mundo" is not a tabloid and cites sources and shows testimonials, documents and arguments.

Larean wrote: You have a serious methodological confusion. What you state is not a hypothesis, it is a methodological principle/rule of thumb.

I know. That´s the reason I wrote hypothesis in Italics and with a sigh!. Thank you for the epistemology lesson, anyway.

The reason for my intervention truncating some words is in my Internet access: It is "filtered", so I can not write some words and/or expressions into an Internet window, just like a chinese that can not google "Tiananmen square", because that search is filtered in China.

I hope you are less "disturbed" now, Larean.

---

--Larean01 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Larean wrote: When I ask you direct questions of what you claim and why, you always dodge the questions.

I claim that several reputable sources had disputed the Indictmet narrative and conclussions about the Madrid bombings. The Indictmet is not "a fact", but only "an interpretation of the facts", because other interpretations had been published in reputable sources. To abide by NPOV rules all sources should be used to write the article. That´s it.

The issue we have is that you have not shown that El Mundo is a "reputable" source. That is precisely my contention.

>::Larean wrote:You still have not explained why the indictment is a conspiracy theory

Because attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations (see Conspiracy theory)

Wrong. The indictment does not try to explain the ultimate cause of 11-M as a secret and often deceptive plot by a covert alliance of poerwful or influential people or organizations. The "pelanas" are anything but powerful or influential. There is no deception. There is no alliance. Under your definition, any indictment concerning a number of people would be a conspiracy theory. That is absurd.

Larean wrote:In particular you consider that if a source is anti-something it is not to be trusted

All sources are "anti-something" and all sources must be taken cum grano salis. I am not here saying that PRISA sources should not be used, despite their shameless lye about the "suicidal terrorists".

No, not all sources are anti-something. That is a major defect in Spanish journalism, not necessarily applicable to other geographies. But you did put into question EGM's study because it was anti-El Mundo. You finally agreed that some sources are not exactly reliable. And that is the main point being discussed here: the reliability of conspiracy theory sources.

At any rate and for the record, I do think that PRISA sources should ALSO be treated cum grano salis. I hope you explicitly state the same about El Mundo: it should be treated in the same way. Now, in this respect cum grano salis means that, in the absence of material evidence the allegations of ANY newspaper should be treated as mere especulations.

Larean wrote:you have failed to argue why I cannot quote The National Enquirer as a source to prove alien visits to the Earth or that Elvis is alive, but still I can quote El Mundo's outlandish claims concerning 11-M conspiracy theories

Because the NE is a tabloid with no reputation and no sources.

"El Mundo" is not a tabloid and cites sources and shows testimonials, documents and arguments.

El Mundo is acting every bit as a tabloid in respect to 11-M. It almost never quotes sources that can be checked by a third party. Their "testimonials" usually come from criminals like Trashorras (who they shamelessly portrait as a choir boy in the most revolting exercise of agenda-pushing journalism in the history of Spanish democracy). Their arguments can all be shown to be wrong.

That is why El Mundo is not reliable. Let us engage in that debate, Randroide. You put an El Mundo allegation here and I will show you why it is not reliable, each and every time.

Larean wrote: You have a serious methodological confusion. What you state is not a hypothesis, it is a methodological principle/rule of thumb.

I know. That´s the reason I wrote hypothesis in Italics and with a sigh!. Thank you for the epistemology lesson, anyway.

That would mean it is now yourself who are making me waste my time. At any rate, if you accept my arguments that would mean that you accept that El Mundo and Pedro J. Ramírez DO have hypotheses and therefore cannot be claimed to research in a vacuum. Therefore you need to retract that claim from yours.

The reason for my intervention truncating some words is in my Internet access: It is "filtered", so I can not write some words and/or expressions into an Internet window, just like a chinese that can not google "Tiananmen square", because that search is filtered in China.

I hope you are less "disturbed" now, Larean.

That is very unfortunate. But I still don't know what the issues were concerning truncation, so I still withhold my judgement in that respect.

My feeling disturbed did not come from that. It came from your lack of interest in discussing the spirit of the law, rather than letter; it comes from you systematically dodging my questions and issues. I hope you start addressing them from now on. Your last answer is a good start in that direction.

---

Randroide 10:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Larean wrote: The issue we have is that you have not shown that El Mundo is a "reputable" source. That is precisely my contention.

I do not fall in you petitio principii, Larean. The second general information spanish newspaper is a reputable source by definition. It´s up to you to prove the opposite, but, please, wait for the RfC.

Larean wrote: The indictment does not try to explain the ultimate cause of 11-M as a secret and often deceptive plot by a covert alliance of poerwful or influential people or organizations. The "pelanas" are anything but powerful or influential. There is no deception. There is no alliance. Under your definition, any indictment concerning a number of people would be a conspiracy theory. That is absurd.

"Pelanas" is a term used by notorious Indictment doubter w:es:Federico Jiménez Losantos, denoting the insignificance of the allegued perpetrators. It is a curious thing to see you using this term.

Of course that, talking Emic from the Indictment P.O.V., the allegued perpetrators were powerful and influential:

• They caused the biggest terror attack in Europe during peacetime since Pan Am Flight 103
• They made the PSOE party to win the 2004 general election [13].

If you call them "Pelanas", then tou are "Etic" from the Indictment and "Emic" from the doubters of the Indictment narrative of facts.

Larean wrote: But you did put into question EGM's study because it was anti-El Mundo. You finally agreed that some sources are not exactly reliable. And that is the main point being discussed here: the reliability of conspiracy theory sources.

I did put in question. But I did not rejected your source.

Petitio principii again. The issue of the reliability of the doubters of the indictment can also be raised against the supporters of the indictment, and against the indictment itself.

Larean wrote: in the absence of material evidence the allegations of ANY newspaper should be treated as mere especulations.

I agree with you 100%.

• Please point me to the material evidence of which explosives went off in the trains.
• Please point me to the material evidence of where are the empty shells of the Leganés "2 hour shooting with automatic weapons". Onlu 5 empty shells were recovered ijn the rubble.

...and so on.

The Indictment is full of mere especulations.

Larean wrote: El Mundo is acting every bit as a tabloid in respect to 11-M. It almost never quotes sources that can be checked by a third party. Their "testimonials" usually come from criminals like Trashorras (who they shamelessly portrait as a choir boy in the most revolting exercise of agenda-pushing journalism in the history of Spanish democracy). Their arguments can all be shown to be wrong. That is why El Mundo is not reliable. Let us engage in that debate, Randroide. You put an El Mundo allegation here and I will show you why it is not reliable, each and every time.

• El País is acting every bit as a tabloid in respect to 11-M. It´s up to you to prove this grave allegation abouth the second general information spanish newspaper. Wait for the RfC, please.
• I do trust neither Trashorras´ testimonials. Please note I have not introduced the issue, because I think it is unimportant.
• You put an El Mundo allegation here and I will show you why it is not reliable. That´s "original research", Larean. You must not "show me" nothing. You must find a sourced "rebuttal" (if you can find one) and add that "rebuttal" to my source.

Larean wrote: That would mean it is now yourself who are making me waste my time. At any rate, if you accept my arguments that would mean that you accept that El Mundo and Pedro J. Ramírez DO have hypotheses and therefore cannot be claimed to research in a vacuum. Therefore you need to retract that claim from yours.

I made no "hypothesis" claim. Look at my original post: The word is in italics because I was quoting you, using your words, not mine. Anyway, I am sorry if my quoting of your words made you waste your time. I will be very careful in the future when using irony.

Larean wrote: My feeling disturbed did not come from that. It came from your lack of interest in discussing the spirit of the law, rather than letter; it comes from you systematically dodging my questions and issues.

• The spirit you see in the law is different from the spirit I see. That´s the reason I stick to the letter.
• Please show me a single question by you dodged by me.

Randroide 11:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Request for Larean: Larean, please, move text to the archive 6, because the page is already 105kb long and browsers (at least mine) about to collapse.

Do not add new material before "lightening" the page, please.

I can not do the moving of text myself (as usual) because my filter would truncate words in Southofwatford´s message, and he´s very sensitive about this (IMHO minor) issue.

You can also do this job, Southofwatford.

Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

Intro thoughts

Is there any evidence for this ETA theory? Or is it just a popular conspiracy theory? I'd like to point out some things:

An intro really really should state (a) who has credibly caimed responcibiliy for the bombings, and (b) the terrorist organization affiliated with those convicted, and please be specific about their religion/ideology/nationality. Moroccan terrorist ain't the same guys who blew up the WTC. I'd avoid even mentioning al-Qaeda unless your sure about inspiration (the judge said it here right? maybe that is enough). Its much easier to be sure about who was convicted.

A conspiracy theory's popularity is itself sufficent reason for inclusion; however, not necessarily sufficent for inclusion in the intro, depending upon style. If you include conspiracy theories, you must also be prepared to do quite a lot more work explaining the evidence behind the standard theory, since conspiracy theories always try to have charismatic packaging. But you still don't need to include even a popular conspiracy theory in the intro.

As a comparison, it may help to chat about the John F. Kennedy assassination article. It's intro states that conspiracy theories are popular, but this is an understatment. JFK conspiracy theories are ubiquitous in the U.S. As a child growing up, you never even hear about the orthodox story except along with some conspiracy theories. I'd also like to point out that JFK's has very specific difficulties with the evidence for the official theory. Otoh, here the main conspiracy theory asks us to believe that police investigators planted specific evidence. JFK conspiracy theories need only accuse Warren comission of supressing some better evidence.

Anyway, good luck with it, I found both the article and your debates quite confusing. My instinct here is that this conspiracy theory deserves mention in the article, but does not deserve mention in the intro. But I simply don't know what impact the theory has in Spain. JeffBurdges 22:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 08:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I presented no "ETA Theory", JeffBurdges. That´s a first class straw man presented by my adversaries.

Please read 11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Questions_over_the_type_of_explosive_used_in_the_bombs for a starter. The "islamist" trail is impossible acoording with Sánchez del Manzano declarations, because the "Islamists" only bought Goma 2 ECO.

My consensus proposal is "Perps: Islamists, blah, blah...according spanish judiciary, blah, blah...disputed by some media"

And, please, do not mix issues: To say and to prove that there is no solid proof of "islamist" autorship is NOT a "conspiracy theory" as far as you do not risk alternative explanations. "El Mundo" does not risk such explanations.

JeffBurdges wrote: As a comparison, it may help to chat about the John F. Kennedy assassination article...

Please note the BIG difference with this issue: The JFK assasination objections to the Warren commision conclussions did not appear as research pieces in the second US newspaper. Those objections only were voiced in books (I own a 1964 book in spanish with the major objections to the Offciacial Version).

JeffBurdges wrote: If you include conspiracy theories...

I did not include a single conspiracy theory. Please, check it. I only inluded sourced objections to the Indictment.

---

Southofwatford 09:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC) El Mundo has called the bombings a "golpe de estado" (coup d'etat) which is a direct, but entirely unsubstantiated, accusation that there has been a conspiracy behind the bombings. They attempt at every opportunity to imply ETA involvement, again without any substantial evidence. They distort and occasionally manipulate statements to make them fit their allegations. They do not risk openly spelling out their allegations because they have no evidence for them and could easily end up in a delicate legal situation - but it is simply not the case that they do not support the conspiracy theories. All of this is well documented in the archive pages here.

The idea that something ceases to be a conspiracy theory because a newspaper reports it is bizarre and belongs in no definition of a conspiracy theory that I have seen - newspapers have of course widely reported the conspiracy theories on the JFK assassination and other conspiracy theories too. When I first became involved on this page Randriode made no objection to the use of the term "conspiracy theories", only when he realised that it might prejudice his case in some way did he begin to insist that they should be called something else - but calling a table a chair does not mean that it ceases to be a table.

---

JeffBurdges : So far there is not any single evidence.

In Spain there is a very small group that promotes this theories. There is a core of people with nothing to loose since they are unknown journalists who are the ones that sustain the conspiracy theory (the socialdemocrat party helped ETA in the bombing using infiltrated corrupted policemen and now is doing a cover-up). Around this core there is a group of people with more prestige who plays to say and do not say, insinuating and doing hedlines with supposed revelations that finish nowhere. And in the most external part -trying to not be stained-there are some polititians. The original goal of all this was to state that the elections were illegitimate. After so much time and with the new elections closer than the 2004, the mainstream of the right party (PP) has abandoned these theories completely. Unfortunately, many people to whom conspiracies are a hobby, continue with this in the Internet.

The debate is very simple. The majority of the editors want to follow the same system as in 9/11. To make an article with what happened following the police investigation and then to make another article where the conspiracy theories are named in a fair way. However, we have here Randroide trying to impede this to happen. He is very active and skillfull and has stopped truth for more than 3 months. He waves wikpedia rules and some references from the local Spanish newspaper who mantains the story alive (for reasons long to explain but fully known and sourceable) to block any progress. --Igor21 09:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Randroide 10:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Igor21 wrote: In Spain there is a very small group that promotes this theories. There is a core of people with nothing to loose since they are unknown journalists who are the ones that sustain the conspiracy theory...[]...Around this core there is a group of people with more prestige who plays to say and do not say, insinuating and doing hedlines with supposed revelations that finish nowhere. And in the most external part -trying to not be stained-there are some polititians...[]... Unfortunately, many people to whom conspiracies are a hobby, continue with this in the Internet.

Irony ON.

You wrote a very good Conspiracy theory, Igor21!!!!. Thank you. I loved it because, you know, conspiracies are my hobby.

• A three layered conspiracy theory!!!. Awesome!!!
• A sinister cabal of evildoers with a core of people with nothing to loose !!!. Terrific!!!.
• A hideous plot to make people thing that the pure-as-the-untouched-snow 2004 spanish elections (with illegal demonstrations the night previous to the election) were illegitimate!!!. Amazing!!!

Irony OFF.

You forgot the "script", Igor21.

The "script" says that I am the guy to be (mis)represented as a "conspiracy theorist".

If you write this kind of stuff, any newbie to this page is going to think that you are the "conspiracy theorist".

---

Southofwatford 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I've got a better one than that Randroide - there are people who actually believe that ETA and the Spanish government organised the bombings together, along with the help of the Moroccan and French secret services, and that the Spanish government are out to kill those who know the truth! Really, I'm not making it up!

This bit will really make you laugh - the same people who organised the bombings (the government and ETA together, remember) killed some North Africans, froze their bodies - put the frozen bodies into the flat in Leganés and then blew it up to make it look like a suicide. Yes, I know its a crazy theory, but people truly believe it.

---

Randroide 10:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote: El Mundo has called the bombings a "golpe de estado"

You give no source. I ask you for a source for this statement. I can write also that "El Mundo" endorsed ritual sacrifice of newborns", if I give no source, what I write is a flatus vocis.

Southofwatford wrote: When I first became involved on this page Randriode made no objection to the use of the term "conspiracy theories"

I presume good faith, so I conclude that you are not lying, but simply that you are totally wrong about this issue.

---

Southofwatford 10:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC) El Mundo source [[14]]

Thank you for not calling me a liar - check the archive pages and you will see that your objection to the use of the term "conspiracy theories" begins well after we started our discussions. Maybe this will jog your memory on your usage of the term:

"Algún día habrá que crear el apartado de "teorías de la conspiración" explicando los "agujeros negros" del 11-M. ¿Conoces a algún angloparlante que te deba un favor?. Un saludo Randroide 19:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

my translation

"Some day we will have to create the section on 'conspiracy theories' explaining the 'black holes' of 11th March. Do you know an English speaker who owes you a favour?

---

Randroide 10:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much for your fast reference providing.

You wrote: El Mundo has called the bombings a "golpe de estado

You are wrong

This is the context for the words "Coup d'état" in the article you gently linked.

Por mucho que nos empeñemos, afirmaciones como la de que «estamos ante un golpe de Estado encubierto tras una trama islamista» no tienen el mismo efecto de cara a la opinión pública, si quien realiza esa afirmación es un periodista, que si la realiza alguien que está implicado de manera directa en los hechos.

"El Mundo" says that Trashorras said. El Mundo does nor say that there was a coup.

El Gobierno puede seguir escudándose en el silencio. Pero esa postura va a ser cada vez más insostenible ante una opinión pública que empieza a percibir como posible la hipótesis del golpe de Estado.

"El Mundo" talks about public perception, and in a very "soft" manner: "public opinion starts to feel that it is possible the hipothesis of a coup d'état".

"El Mundo" never says what you said it said.

You are wrong, Southofwatford.

---

Southofwatford 10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC) They are using a ficticious concept of public opinion, because the only ones floating the hypothesis are themselves. But yes, they don't say it directly any more than they say anything else directly. Insinuation forms an important part of El Mundo's campaign - it forms no part of independent investigative journalism.

---

Randroide 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford wrote: They are using a ficticious concept of public opinion, because the only ones floating the hypothesis are themselves

How do you know that?. That´s only your personal opinion, not a fact.

I started to smell foul play when the Skoda Fabia issue erupted, long before any "agujero negro" arrived to my ears.

---

Southofwatford 11:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC) It's a ficticious concept because they don't back it up in any way. Where is this public opinion that is forming a hypothesis about a golpe de estado? It's a device rather than a reference to any real object, because "public opinion" can be more or less anything you want it to be - its an artifical construct. That they are attempting to create a climate of suspicion on the bombings is beyond doubt, this carefully programmed drip feed of supposed "revelations" is not the result of journalistic discovery, many of the stories are based on information that has been public domain for 2 years or more.

---

Randroide 10:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford wrote: Maybe this will jog your memory on your usage of the term..[]...Some day we will have to create the section on "conspiracy theories"'

Please illustrate yourself about the ironical use of quotation marks: Quotation_mark#Irony.

Note: I wrote "conspiracy theories", NOT conspiracy theories.

---

Southofwatford 10:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Oh so they were ironic quotation marks! Are the ones surrounding "agujeros negros" ironic too, or are they different quotation marks - they look very similar? The point remains the same, you didn't start to object to the use of the term until the end of July.

---

Randroide 11:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry for the grammar lesson: Quotation marks have different purposes in different contexts: Quotation_mark#Usage.

The purpose of the quotations when I write "agujeros negros" is totally different for the purpose when I write "teorías de la conspiración".

---

Southofwatford 11:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Now Randriode gives "grammar lessons", but still avoids the point I made. The phrase is a nice reminder of why you are here on this page however.

---

Randroide 11:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Why I am in this page is cristal clear: To get the whole picture in the main article, not a truncated partial version about what happened, that was the sorry state of the article until this summer.

I did not know (and I do not care) if I started to make objections to "conspiracy theory" from the very first intervention with you, but I can say for sure that I never accepted that expression.

---

Southofwatford 11:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Not quite Randriode, you came here because you were unable to achieve your political objectives on the Spanish version of this page, so you simply switched to the English one.

---

Randroide 11:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I came here because Wikipedia rules and guidelines are enforced in the en:Wikipedia, so this is a good place to work.

I have no political objectives, and, besides, my personal objetives (and yours) are totally irrelevant and out of place here. I suggest you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

---

Southofwatford 11:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC) "I have no political objectives."

Disputed, the peones negros have political objectives and it seems reasonable to assume that their supporters share those objectives. I agree that such objectives should be out of place here, unfortunately I do not think it is the case.

---

Randroide 11:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

---

--Larean01 17:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

JeffBurdges: Your remarks are very welcome. The ETA theory IS a conspiracy theory (CT). The same proponents of those theories, with notorious incoherence, have also pointed to the French and Moroccan secret services, to members of the Police and the "Guardia Civil" (rural militarised police similar to the Gendermerie or the Carabinieri) and, above all, to the then opposition party, now in government. They make some outlandish claims: basically that several pieces of material evidence were forged to mislead the public opinion and the police and that the people who killed themselves in Leganés after being surrounded by Police were scapegoats who were actually killed by an unknown entity (I simply love this claim). Compared to these fellows, the 9/11 or JFK CT proponents are rigoruous scientists...

Randroide believes that we should include all the allegations of the CT proponents just because (believe or not) a major newspaper with a clear political agenda and no journalism ethics has published them. The editor of that paper, Pedro J. Ramírez, is our version of Charles Foster Kane/William Randolph Hearst. You get the picture.

P.S. Randroide: you say that we should include the term "disputed" concerning authorship. Now, if we grant for a second that a local Islamist group didn't do it, SOMEBODY DID. Who is that? The Tamil Tigers? You are not discussing with babies. We all know perfectly well that on one hand Pedro J. Ramírez plays the false dilemma fallacy: if you discard the islamists, you need to start thinking about ETA... or worse (PSOE-police). On the other hand, Ramírez continously publishes ETA "leads": Trashorras selling dynamite to ETA, El Chino travelling to Bilbao, coincidence of the "death caravans". Are you trying to tell us that there is no hidden hypothesis behind these headlines? Come on. Popper said there is no research without hypothesis.

---

--Larean01 17:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 08:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)wrote:

I presented no "ETA Theory", JeffBurdges. That´s a first class straw man presented by my adversaries.

Please read 11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Questions_over_the_type_of_explosive_used_in_the_bombs for a starter. The "islamist" trail is impossible acoording with Sánchez del Manzano declarations, because the "Islamists" only bought Goma 2 ECO.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that Sánchez Manzano later explained that he made a mistake (it is commonly but wrongly assumed that all dynamites contain nitroglycerine), and that the person who made the chemical analyses testified that she never mentioned nitroglycerine. Furthermore Sánchez Manzano acknowledged in his first declarations --the same ones you quote-- that he was no expert in explosives, only in their de-activation; thus his opinion on nitroglycerine being present is suspect. Finally, in the same sentence that he mentions nitroglycerine he makes an obvious mistake. He says: "We found nitroglycerine, a substance present in all dynamites". CT proponents always quote the first part "we found nitroglycerine" without the second part, which is obviously false. They do that because they do not want to present Sánchez Manzano saying an obvious falsehood. This time (as opposed to others in which they have accused Sánchez Manzano of lying) they want to present him as saying the truth.

This is the kind of lack of objectivity --there is a stronger word, but I will omit it-- that CT proponents exhibit every single time.

---

--Larean01 17:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I started to smell foul play when the Skoda Fabia issue erupted, long before any "agujero negro" arrived to my ears.

And what is the "Skoda Fabia issue", pray tell? The Skoda Fabia is redundant. Take it out of the indictment and ALL material evidence is still there.

By the way, being a physicist by education and an epistemologist by hobby I am very interested in El Mundo's "proof" that there is no solid proof of Islamic authorship. I am sure this will be an epistemological revolution. Eat your hearts out, Galileo and Euclid. Pedro J. Ramírez has just invented a definitive proof system. And poor dear Karl Popper, how wrong he was...

---

Randroide 18:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Larean wrote: And what is the "Skoda Fabia issue"

[15][16][17][18][19]

Larean wrote: JeffBurdges: Your remarks are very welcome. The ETA theory IS a conspiracy theory (CT). The same proponents of those theories, with notorious incoherence, have also pointed to the French and Moroccan secret services, to members of the Police and the "Guardia Civil" (rural militarised police similar to the Gendermerie or the Carabinieri) and, above all, to the then opposition party, now in government.

Could you please tell us where are my edits trying to include all The ETA theory and all the other accusations?.

I made no such edits. You can beat that straw man as long as you find it funny, but it is only an straw man.

Larean wrote: Now, if we grant for a second that a local Islamist group didn't do it, SOMEBODY DID. Who is that?

I do not know.

I do not know who gave you that gift last Christmas.

But I know, and I can say it with total confidence, that it was not Santa Claus, because Santa does not exist. I have no further obligation to know who gave you the gift.

---

Southofwatford 18:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Randriode, please clarify why you have edited mine and Larean01's comments on this page?

---

--Larean01 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide, you keep being disingenuous on purpose. El Mundo DOES make those claims implicitly, and you believe El Mundo has "proven" something. Let me ask you: why is the coincidence of ETA stealing a car near Trashorras' home relevant? It can only be relevant if you have a hypothesis. To NOT formulate that hypothesis only shows one thing: intellectual dishonesty on the part of Pedro J. Ramírez. He points to a clear theory, but lets other people state it explicitly. That theory is of course ETA involvement.

IRONY ON. On the other hand, I didn't know El Chino and Trashorras didn't exist. This is probably the most outlandish claim ever made in the field of conspiracy theories. IRONY OFF.

Are you seriously claiming that Islamic authorship is IMPOSSIBLE? How in Heavens can you prove that?

P.S. I love these talk pages. Sooner or later conspiracionists who try to seem reasonable start making outlandish claims. They always go from something like "Uhm, I just have some doubts and questions" to something like "The Invisible Woman from the Fantastic 4 killed the scapegoats in Leganés".

PPS What comments have been edited, Southofwatford?

PPPS. Concerning the Skoda, don't quote me El Mundo. I know those articles by heart. I want to know why YOU started smelling something, in your own words. Come on, Randroide, as we say in Spain: "get wet".

---

Randroide 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry for the truncation from your comments. I operate from a filtered institutional computer which cuts some "sensitive" words, just as if you operate from China the server cuts any "Tiananmen square" reference.

Larean wrote: Are you seriously that Islamic authorship is IMPOSSIBLE? How in Heavens can you prove that?

I never wrote that Islamic authorship is IMPOSSIBLE. Read carefully, please, and do not put in mouth words I have not uttered.

Larean wrote: I want to know why YOU started smelling something

Editors thoughts are irrelevant. Only sources count.

Larean wrote: Let me ask you: why is the coincidence of ETA stealing a car near Trashorras' home relevant?

For the same reason that an "Quranic tape" in the Renault Kangoo is relevant: It is a clue, and you must follow all the clues to see if you find proofs.

Larean wrote: Concerning the Skoda, don't quote me El Mundo. I know those articles by heart.

Fine. Then please explain me why you asked ''And what is the "Skoda Fabia issue". I spent a quarter of hour preparing you a proper sourced response and I want an explanation.

---

JeffBurdges 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Igor21 and Larean01 for your concise explination. Yes, following 9/11 sounds like the best compromise model. fyi, I still think the intro shouuld be expanded. Also, if no group has ever claimed responcibility for the bombing, you might want to mention that.

---

--Larean01 23:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

JeffBurdges user: Al Qaeda's leadership has repeatedly claimed responsibility. Aside from that, there was a video found on the 13th in which islamists claimed responsibility.

Randroide:

1) I am very sorry if I made you waste your time. I thought it was clear from my question that I knew fully well what you were talking about: the hallucinations of Fernando Múgica concerning a redundant piece of material evidence. Of course you do not "get wet" telling us what you think. You let Múgica do the dirty work while you stay pristine. I am sorry, Randroide. We can all see through you. You are 100% transparent, as will be seen in the next point.

2) At any rate, you yourself talk about your thoughts ("I started to smell, etc.") Don't give me now that line about your thoughts being irrelevant. You cannot have it both ways, with your ideas being relevant when you want to quote them and irrelevant when somebody asks you about them. In my opinion this discrepancy only shows that you yourself are ashamed to defend publicly conspirationist views which you clearly hold. There is a word for that, Randroide, and it is not a pretty word.

3) No, no. That is not the question. The question is: under which hypothesis is the ETA coincidence relevant? And the answer, since you seem to not know it, is: Under the hypothesis that posits that ETA had something to do with the attacks. Therefore there IS a hypothesis, contrary to your claim that Pedro J., an epistemological genius, contradicts Popper and does research in a vacuum.

4) You compared Santa Claus' existence with Islamist authorship. Either the simile was absurd or you actually make the claim that your level of confidence in Santa Claus not existing is similar to your level of confidence on non-Islamist authorship. By the way, this is also a CLAIM. See? It is impossible to be a conspirationist without positing CLAIMS. Your position as the epistemological wonder who asks questions without hypotheses is sinking faster than the Titanic.

The bottom line, Randroide, is that you are intelligent and you know conspirationism is untenable and ridiculous. That is why you constantly dodge my questions and arguments. That is why you hide behind your "sources", your tricks and your formalisms. Pure sophistry. That is what you deliver. And sophistry has no place in an encyclopedia.

--- JeffBurdges 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC) In that case, the intro needs to say that al-Qaeda has a credible claim, but I personally prefer if something more is mentioned, like that it was carried out by a Moroccan group, assuming that is true. al-Qaeda is a pretty loose "organization" so its kinda important to say something more about its operatives, if only just their nationality.

---

Randroide 08:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

JeffBurdges wrote: but I personally prefer if something more is mentioned, like that it was carried out by a Moroccan group, assuming that is true.

• The guy who, according with the spanish judiciary, provided the allegued explosives of the bombings, was not "Moroccan". Was a spanish police collaborator from Asturias, Emilio Suárez Trashorras [20]. You should also mention that to follow NPOV rules.

• The guy who, according with the spanish judiciary, liberated IMEIs for the bombs, was not "Moroccan", Was a syrian spanish policeman, named Maussili Kalaji [21]. You should also mention that to follow NPOV rules.

• 34 over 40 allegued perpetrators were controlled or collaborating with spanish security forces [22]. You should also mention that to follow NPOV rules.

...this is too long to fit in a "perps" box, so I suggest to create a new section "Perpetrators" and link the box with the section.

To Larean: I do not accept any implication of my position being inferior to yours. If I can be regarded as a "conspiracy theorist" you can be also, because you "buy" the "conspiracy theory" presentated in the Indictment. Anyway, thank you for you apologies.

Larean wrote:The question is: under which hypothesis is the ETA coincidence relevant?

Under the hypothesis (sigh!) that all the clues must be followed to see if they lead to solid evidence.

• If you do NOT support this simple principle, please have the chutzpa to write it.
• If you do, plase stop asking superfluous questions.

---

Southofwatford 11:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC) I have now restored for the second time modifications made by Randriode to comments by myself and Larean01. Randroide, you are responsible for all modifications that result from your edits, any changes to other users comments without their consent and without rectification of the change is clearly vandalism.

---

--Larean01] 15:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide:

1) Your position is not inferior a priori. It is inferior because it can be shown to be untenable and absurd, as any CT usually is. At the same time, you constantly dissemble and try to hide your position as a conspirationist. When I ask you direct questions of what you claim and why, you always dodge the questions.

2) You still have not explained why the indictment is a conspiracy theory in your view, despite my repeated efforts to discuss the point. I gather that you have no arguments to defend your claim and are again dodging my questions. I will therefore point out each and every time you raise that claim the fact that it holds no water.

3) You have acknowledged elsewhere that all sources do not have the same level of reliability. In particular you consider that if a source is anti-something it is not to be trusted. You probably didn't mean to say it, but you said it. And that is precisely the main issue we want to discuss and that you dodge constantly. You hide behind formalisms and selective and biased readings of the Wikipedia rules to claim that all sources are equally quotable, an absurd claim that Wikipedia itself addresses in its rules, as I have shown. Wikipedia clearly talks about RELIABILITY and trustworthiness of sources. Since you dodge the issue, you have failed to argue why I cannot quote The National Enquirer as a source to prove alien visits to the Earth or that Elvis is alive, but still I can quote El Mundo's outlandish claims concerning 11-M conspiracy theories, giving them the same or more credibility that we give to the Police, the indictment judge, the State Attorneys and the trial tribunal.

4) You answer me that your "hypothesis" to pursue the ETA-Trashorras link is that "all the clues must be followed to see if they lead to solid evidence".

Several remarks here.

a) You have a serious methodological confusion. What you state is not a hypothesis, it is a methodological principle/rule of thumb. First you establish a methodology of research/criminal investigation as a framework (usually you do that implicitly, after many repetitions). Then you formulate hypotheses to explain the facts of a particular investigation. A hypothesis is NOT a methodological principle. It is something that pertains to the particular research/investigation that you are pursuing. But is is important inasmuch as a hypothesis directs your research/investigation. It gives a value of relevance to certain "clues" or facts. Without hypothesis formulation it is impossible to assess whether a fact is relevant, and as I show in (c), this means you will proceed blindly and fruitlessly in your investigation.

b) Therefore the correct hypothesis is not a general principle, but the particular "ETA had something to do with the 11-M attacks". That is what would make the ETA-Trashorras alleged connection relevant. Otherwise this would be as irrelevant as finding coincidences in the brand of underwear that Trashorras and Txapote (note to other editors: a well-known ETA terrorist) use. Now, this proves that no research is innocent in the sense that is does not occur in a vacuum. And this therefore proves that Pedro J. Ramírez from EL Mundo DOES have hypotheses. He only lacks the intellectual honesty to state them explicitly. Therefore, your claim that Ramírez investigates in a vacuum is disingenuous and false. Just a question, and I hope you can answer it now. If Ramírez does not have hypotheses, how come he gives value to the boric acid-ETA connection and NOT to the boric acid-anarchism connection? You are surely aware that aside from ETA and Al Haski, boric acid was discovered in the hands of an anarchist. Yet El Mundo has barely mentioned the issue.

c) That being said, the methodological principle that "all the clues must be followed" is, I am sorry to say, methodological rubbish. Nobody who is seriously engaged in research or criminal investigation follows that principle. The reason for that is that the number of potential "clues" is practically infinite. That is precisely why you need hypotheses to direct your research/investigation. Without hypotheses you would be researching until Judgement Day. The researcher makes an educated guess as to what is relevant (i.e. possible, reasonable) and what is not. He/she also makes an educated guess of when you have reached a dead end and need to track back and follow other paths. No one follows absolutely everything. That is your main methodological mistake.

At any rate, I find your dodging of all the issues I have mentioned deeply disturbing, as they are basic methodological questions. I am sorry to say that my impressión is that you do not seem to be ready to engage in honest debate about the content of the article. You take refuge in the letter of the law (Wikipedia rules) to avoid discussing the spirit of the law and to advance the conspirationist agenda.

If nothing else, you should engage in the discussion about reliability of sources. Wikipedia has rules about this matter that you have repeatedly declined to discuss.

Southofwatford: I would like to understand what Randroide is doing to my comments and to yours. Please write to me.

---

JeffBurdges 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Alright, good luck with it guys, when this eventually ends up in RfC or RfA maybe I can say soemthing helpful.

---

Southofwatford 11:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Feel free to do so JeffBurdges - it doesn't look like it will end up in an RFC. I made a reasonable structured proposal for an RFC that treated all editors equally. That proposal was blocked by Randroide at the last minute when it was almost ready to go. I don't feel any temptation to propose a new one because there was nothing wrong with the old proposal and the effort involved is not justified by the results. My own feeling is that this dispute will almost certainly have to end up in arbitration, if we can't even agree on putting forward an RFC then there is very little propspect of agreement on anything

---

Chaos as a tool to evade debate

Randroide : It is really remarcable your ability to create a total chaos in a page when things are not going the way you want it to go (I remember when you destroyed pages in Spanish wikipedia alleging that you have a problem in your VDU). Seeing the level of chaos you have engineered here, it is clear that you felt your conspirationist theories about 11-M in serious trouble and your only source as unable to pass any world class test of credibility. Can you show me a way of finding your proposed text for your proposed RFC in the middle of the ruins of the debate that you were loosing and you have consequently destroyed? And BTW, does anybody knows if there is any rule in wikipedia forbidding this chaos-flooding tactics Randroide uses so liberally?--Igor21 11:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)