Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The explosives issue: Proposal[edit]

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

Some lines from the main article:

Investigators subsequently found that the explosives used in the Leganés explosion were of the same type as those used in the 11 March attacks and the thwarted bombing of the AVE line
The provincial chief of the TEDAX (the bomb disposal experts of the Spanish police) declared on 12 July 2004 that damage in the trains could not be caused by dynamite, but by some type of military explosive, like C3 or C4.[24]. Use of Titadine (Used by ETA, and intercepted in its way to Madrid 11 days before) has also been reported [25].
Two bombs—one in Atocha and another one in El Pozo stations, numbers 11 and 12—were detonated accidentally by the TEDAX. According to the provincial chief of the TEDAX, deactivated rucksacks contained some other type of explosive. The 13th bomb which was transferred to a police station, contained dynamite
These groups would have bought the explosives (dynamite Goma-2 ECO)
No era Goma-2 ECO: El explosivo que estalló el 11-M era distinto del que tenían los islamistas

And, the jewel of the crown:

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

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

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

Any ideas to improve the narrative of the article?.

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


I do agree with you that the section needs vast improving, it's quite messy as it stands now. For one, I'd take off all the Spanish sentences. This is the English Wikipedia, there is no need to have the same sentence both in Spanish and in English (as long as a reference is provided). Second, in order to write a coherent narrative, as you rightly put it, we need to find different sources and provide a chronological order of events. I'm a bit worried on how heavily the entire section leans on only one source (El Mundo). We need to provide different sources with the different takes they have on everything that has happened related to the explosives. I for one remember reading an article by El Pais that refuted (or so they claimed) every single assertion that El Mundo gave about this topic. I'm gonna try to hunt it down online. There is a lot of contradictory info about this subject, but it's not up to us to solve the contradiction: merely, to present all different points of view existing about the subject to the reader. Does what I'm saying make sense? :) Cheers Raystorm 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Raystorm : El Mundo is a non reliable source that is inventing things and contradicting primary known sources. They have been catched fabricating news and their ideas are not shared by nobody except a very small circle of people interconected. The narrative of El Mundo 1)is unique and cannot be blended with the narrative of all the world class sources 2)since cannot be blended needs to go in a separate article called "conspiracy theories" as have been done in 9/11. It is not a question of finding El Pais contradicting El Mundo, the question is how El Mundo can be used as a source when their statements are not backed up by nobody. What El Pais says is what ALL the newspapers and TV channels in the world say and what must be the main article. Randroide has been looking for world class sources to back up what El MUndo says and has been unable. He do not want El MUndo theories to be in "conspirationist theories about 11-M" and is trying to force them in the main article. The rest of the editors do not agree and we are preparing a request for arbitration. So there are not many of points of view but just two : El Mundo (and some small websites and individuals on a radio programme) and the rest of the world including any newspaper or TV channel you can think about. Cheers. --Igor21 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Igor21! I can see this is a hot topic that has jumped from the Spanish Wikipedia to the English one. :) Listen, despite personal misgivings any of us can have towards specific info being in an article, the fact is that El Mundo (and we're talking about an important Spanish newspaper here) has an alternative theory to the, shall we say, official one. Conspiracy theory or not (in fact, until it's proven, it is technically a conspiracy theory, but anyway), the fact that it exists should be included in the article. Do we agree up to here? Now, I appreciate your concern about giving too much weight to a theory that only El Mundo is carrying out (a few others make echo of the alleged findings of this newspaper, but only those which are extremely critic with the current government, which is suspect in itself), and that only, rather ambiguosly, the Popular Party half supports. I agree that the section (I have mentioned it before here) takes too much space in the article. It could be transferred to another article, with a blow by blow description of what El Mundo says, and other media rebate (without other sources, it'd be shamelessly POV). In this page it'd be enough to mention that El Mundo has an altenative theory (I think that's noteworthy enough), which has not been proven and is highly disputed, and leave it at that. Cheers Raystorm 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

We must reverse all the changes made by Randroide using the holidays we agree. It is ashaming what this guy does. Tell us when you are ready to restore the article to the status it has before Randroide started his massive biasing editings after having accepted mediation. There are no words to qualify Randroide (in fact there are many but are too colourful for Wikipedia).--Igor21 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In another words: In English Wikipedia, Igor21 cannot use the same words that he uses in es:wikipedia. :) --Gimferrer 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
Raystorm wrote: I'm a bit worried on how heavily the entire section leans on only one source (El Mundo)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Randroide, sorry but I'm right about there being no need to have the sentence both in English and Spanish. The full quotation of the link you provided is:
Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
This means, (a) if there exists a translation published anywhere it will be much preferred over any translation any editor can make, and (b) if you use a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear CITATION (not quote) of the foreign language original, so people can check it out. Which means, we use for example El Mundo as a source (non-English), we give a quote (in English) in the article and we provide citation of the foreign language original (the El Mundo webpage where the quote -in Spanish- is).
Btw, I did find the El Pais article I mentioned, but the problem is that it can only be accessed by suscriptors to the newspaper. I'm not sure how to resolve this. Cheers Raystorm 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Yeah, you have a point, Raystorm. On the other hand, I think it is not the best practice to support and assertion with a brief reference from a looooooong article. What about if we move the spanish original citations to the description of the source ? (i.e., to the "Notes" section).
  • Please give us the date of the "El País" article. That´s enough. You have no obligation whatsoever of producing sources available online.

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


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

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

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

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

  • An explanation about the fist block can be found here ,to whom could be concerned. The "reasons" for the second block were still feebler. It starts with "Censor" and finishes with "ship".
  • A report about the sorry, sorry state of the Spanish Wikipedia can be found here ,to whom could be concerned.
  • It should also be said that I am sure that the first of those blocks was motivated by my work here, in this article about the 2004 Madrid train attacks. Here you can read the menacing message written by the admin who blocked me. Yeah, admins in the Spanish Wikipedia write that kind of messages. I also had long and bitter discussions with this admin about the Madrid train attacks in the Spanish Wikipedia.

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


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


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

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

  • Please illuminate us about the "extremist political agenda of the peones negros and their allies". I am very interested in that (alleged by you) "extremist political agenda". Provide external sources, please, for a change. Your say so is not enough.
  • Please provide us with the diffs where I insert my "political opinions". I think that I never, never, never did such a thing. It´s up to you to prove the opposite.
...anyone who makes changes without heeding that situation has to accept the possibility that those changes can be removed

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

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

Questions over the type of explosive used in the bombs[edit]

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


Do not make personal attacks please. We can make this section NPOV, it's just a matter of adding the relevant sources and reaching consensus, and if that's not possible, we go to RfM. Cheers Raystorm 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ps: We'll wait for user Southofwarford then, and then discuss the situation. Cheers Raystorm 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Hi there. I'm not too sure about creating a new sub-section. Can't we incorporate that info into an existing section? Cheers Raystorm 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh. The subjects "El País" article talks about had not been breached until now. IMHO the new sub-section is the way to go. What´s your proposal for placing that info?.Randroide 13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no question about the explosive, all the expertes sign the official papers, Goma2 ECO. Other interpretations is just conspiranoia, so it's not necessary to put it on the main page.

You quote no sources, and sources are needed here.Randroide 08:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

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


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

But there is a SERIOUS PROBLEM:

You wrote in the main text:

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

The source does not say that, the source says:

...when Islamic extremists attacked commuter trains in Madrid

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

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

In fact, they are so cautious that they write:

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

Bold added by me.

Correct the text in the main article, please.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My proposal: can't we find a more recent report by the same source about the subject? This short note, both by its date and its lenght, is not adequate for a sentence that begins 'It is the only case in history'. Besides, I wasn't able to find where in the note it says that.
Page 3: Il n'y a d'ailleurs à ce jour aucun exemple d’une action terroriste menée par des islamistes internationalistes en collaboration avec des non musulmans

As I said, historical affirmations had no expiry date.

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

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

Randroide 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A misleading addition that should be re-touched or deleted[edit]

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

1) This "statement" has no relation with whether the conservative government lied or not, and hence it should be moved to other section or deleted.
2) Even if the stated is moved to another section it means nothing, contributes nothing.
3) The two persons we find in the quote from "El Mundo" are the Spanish miner Suárez Trashorras and the Moroccan Rafá Zuher. I won't ask where it's attested the religion that Suárez Trashorras professes (also an interesting question), but how does Randroide know that the Moroccan one was not muslim?? Fact not documented and probably false.
4) As Suarez Trashorras didn't participated in the bombing, but he was only a provider, a seller; can we assume that the ESISC document say that no islamist terrorist group has never bought weapons to a non muslim?? (Remember who armed the Taliban?). The text in question deals on whether there could have been a tactical alliance between ETA and the Islamist, considering it "hautement improbable" (but not excluding it possibility beforehand) and argues that they prefer to make their Jihad without infidels. But to conclude that the ESISC states that the Islamist terrorist only buy weapons of islamic origin is too much... (and even in this case they bought through a Moroccan intermediary!. Can we imagine that the Islamist terrorist in Spain were going to reject a black market provider because he was no muslim? Where is the source that state that Suarez Trashorras was part of the terrorist cell? that he was aware of the bombing or that he participated in the bombing themselves? If he was the weapon black market provider the comment has no sense and must be deleted. What the quote from "El Mundo" says is that Zuher was an intermediary between the terrorist and Suarez Trashorras. The interpretation that Randroide concludes is very dubious and ridiculous.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

You are wrong. The piece of text...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Straw man. I never wrote that.

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

Gratituous personal attack agaist me.

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

I provide sources for all the statements I add.

I repeat: ALL the stetements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will give a proper response for Raystorm ASAP.



Sorry. No account, no logging.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I suggest you to get an account.

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

This Article Is Subject To Dispute[edit]

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


Randroide 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • You also removed sources to the, for instance, Ibarretxe declaration, hardly a "controversial issue".
  • You also destroyed consensused changes done in the last month.
  • You also destroyed a lot of other minor improvements done by other users, who commited the grave "crime" of not knowing that User:Southofwatford was away.
  • You also introduced a lot of blocks of unsourced text.

I reverted you for the aforementioned reasons.

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

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


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

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

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

Your post has been reported to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.


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

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

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

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

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


Discussion diffs by diffs[edit]

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

Any problem with them?.

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

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

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

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

Any problem with this diffs?. Comments, please.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randroide answer[edit]

Randroide 17:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Diff 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second part from diff 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest:

  • To find a source for the Goma-2 claim (I volunteer for that).
  • To reword the text into something like this:
"forensic analysis of the so-called "13th bomb", an unexploded device found by Spanish policemen among personal belongings from the stations in the first hours of march 12th found Goma-2 in the device, manufactured in Spain and not used by ETA since the 1980s."

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

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


The text is noncontroversial, but unsourced. IMHO it should not stay in the article. I suggest to to repaste it into the article as " hiddedn" text of repaste it with a {{fact}} tag a some time span (let say two months) to find a source or delete.
That's exactly what I said Randroide. Citation needed tag is a fact tag.
Despite the Spanish Government's claims that the explosive used was titadine, a type of compressed dynamite used by ETA in recent years...
There is a contradiction. This is written as "the government said".
This is a quandary: How do we present this issue?. Should we present the oresence of Titadine as a fact (as ABC said) or as a "the government said" (as the CBS).
Both. It is relevant to have both because a strong part of Spain later blamed the Government of lying to them. If there are other sources questioning the use of that explosive, they should be added too. There's no problem with having many references. Especially since you said, quite rightly:
Moreover, the Spanish judiacry (or at least part of the Spanish Judiaciary) says that it is impossible to know what kind of explosives went off in the trains.
Let's have all versions then, not just one. But priority should be given to the Spanish Judiciary one. They have resources and access to info that newspapers generally lack.
Cheers Raystorm 14:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide (sorry, bold letters to get your attention!): I've seen your latest edit. That is not what I meant. You just cite El Mundo citing ABC. What I ask for is a direct citation from ABC. Cheers Raystorm 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Your ABC article, Raystorm [30]. You failed to see it in the turmoil. I understand. Thank you for the bolds.
You're right, I missed it. My mistake. Sorry and thanks. Raystorm 20:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

Where´s the problem, Southofwatford?.

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


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

Request for arbitration[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

I hope you do not read my messages, Southofwatford.

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


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

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

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

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

Two separate articles? As in, the official version and the El Mundo version? I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with that idea. If everytime editors were incapable of arriving to consensus, and new articles had to be created, Wikipedia would be twice as big and there'd be no use for the NPOV rule.
Like it or not, the El Mundo theory is relevant to this issue. I fully agree that it belongs to a minority view, but that doesn't mean that it can't be incorporated to the article. My suggestion would be to create a sub-section for the El Mundo theory (about 2-3 paragraphs long), that links with a sub-article, and there fully expand that version _along_ with the sources that discredit that perspective.
Of course, the trouble has been rebating El Mundo references in the article, because its main rival (El Pais) has a subscription policy, and we cannot simply proceed to argue every single assertion El Mundo makes by citing the date El Pais published that info. Some online references have to be provided. And so far, that's not been possible, and that's why the article is dangerously POV (btw, I don't like the current lead either, I've made a few objections above I hope Randroide will be able to discuss asap). Another possibility would be using the Sumario (or Judiciary text) as a reference (check out http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/108807/0/procesaron/11m/madrid/ and http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/108831/0/olmo/eta/11m/).
I've never been involved in a RfA. What's the procedure? Cheers Raystorm 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide 14:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Igor 21 wrote: I do not want to hide that if it were on my hand, there would be only one article and El Mundo would be not used as a source[44]
This is the respect you have for the NPOV, Igor21.

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

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

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

Why wouldn't 20 minutos be valid??? Nonetheless, that wasn't my point. My point is what the Spanish Judiciary says about ETA involvement, which could be used to counter El Mundo statements.
Unfortunately, my local library closes on Saturday. :) Anyway, that won't solve the problem of not having online references, which is a must. Cheers. Raystorm 15:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Assessment of the situation by an administrator[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#2004_Madrid_train_bombings

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

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

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

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

Randroide 08:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

Informal mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal

Discuss with third parties:

Conduct a survey Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Last resort: Arbitration

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Randroide 13:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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

Someone should...[edit]

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

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

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

Suggested improvements[edit]

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

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

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

Both assertions had been refuted by new data:

  • al-Qaeda "very tenuous" (in fact non existent) connection refuted by [50].
Yup, the famous line: While the bombers may have been inspired by Bin Laden, a two-year investigation into the attacks has found no evidence that al-Qa'ida helped plan, finance or carry out the bombings, or even knew about them in advance.
POSTDATA: Refuted with source provided by Raystorm (see below)Randroide 14:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • the group was completely dismantled, false as a three Euros coin. "El País" 4 January, 2007 asserted [51] that new attacks were being prepared in Spain by alleged perpetrators of the 2004 Madrid train bombings. That reference demolishes the myth of "the bombings were a response for our intervention in Iraq". Spanish troops in Iraq were (thankfully) called home in 2003.

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


I've got some pretty good news!!!! :) Check it out:
http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2006/04/11/autohtml/indice_hechos.html
Yes Ladies & Gentlemen, the complete Auto de Procesamiento del 11-M! And this one can be quoted instead of El Pais. Ironically enough, I found it at El Mundo, but obviously they have nothing to do with it aside from making it available to the public.
Regarding your Independent source, Randroide, about a 2+ year investigation yielding no evidence etc etc. Well, here is said investigation, but it seems to contradict what the Independent says, I'm afraid:
http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2006/04/11/autohtml/index.html?cual=1412
Cheers! Raystorm 13:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I suggest this wording:

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

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


I'm still waiting for your comments about the French ref before changing the lead... Raystorm 13:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
He, he. You are an orderly guy. Fine, I like that. I am not as orderly as I would like and I forgot that thread. You are right in your request, I answered you above. Randroide 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no time for ridiculous games like discussing obvious things word by word.
You are an editor at Wikipedia, are you not? That's exactly what you should be doing if you disagree with controversial content.
Provide the pertinent RAND sources and, as I said, they'll be closely examined and, if pertinent, added to the article while conflicting info is taken off.
Please stop being so confrontational Igor21. I am neither helping Randroide to make a fool of Wikipedia nor attacking your POV. But we need references. Provide them and I'll do the rest, okay? Again, I suggest you look at WP:Undue weight. I fully agree El Mundo claims must be toned down from the article. Help me (a) pinpointing conflicting statements and (b) providing references okay? Thanks and cheers Raystorm 18:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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



Randroide 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Regarding your rantings about the confidents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the same source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From WP:Undue weight:

The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each...[]...Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

"Prominence" of groups supporting doubts about the Indictment:

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




I completely disagree Randroide. The Independent got it all wrong. They said the investigation did not found evidence about al-Qaeda involvement. In the previous sentence, a reference to that same investigation is provided which completely denies the Independent claims. The Independent got it wrong, and the contradiction was eliminated in favour of what the investigation really says. I abide by my actions. That is not POV, it is just being coherent.
Second, the groups that support doubts against the indictment: El Mundo (obviously). La Razon _does not_ support this theory. Frankly, I don't know where you got that idea. It's a pity its editorials aren't available in the web, but I can assure you that they do not support this theory. At most, they echo the alledged findings of El Mundo, but that does not imply endorsement. The other two, again, echo El Mundo. There is only one newspaper who is making all these alledged findings and discoveries, and that's El Mundo. Newspapers that echo what this one is doing do not count as support (they merely do their job, inform).
And I ask you to skim through the webpage from PP, for example. They do not endorse this theory. Find me a reference where it says that this political party endorses denying al-Qaeda involvement and exclusively blaming ETA. Find where it says they (as a party) doubt the validity of the indictment. At most, some members make ambiguous remarks about 'wanting to know all the truth about 11-M' etc, but that's a long way from granting validity to El Mundo's claims.
From WP:Undue weight:
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
Cheers Raystorm 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Tras lo atentados del 11-M en Madrid, sectores de la izquierda acuñaron la frase "queremos saber". Pretendían que el gobierno "popular" investigara investigara la verdad sobre la crueldad desatada en la estación de Atocha aquel fatídico día. Ahora, dos años y medio más tarde, los españoles seguimos queriendo saber. Pero no sólo la verdad sobre lo ocurrido en esa fecha...
And I ask you to skim through the webpage from PP, for example. They do not endorse this theory. Find me a reference where it says that this political party endorses denying al-Qaeda involvement and exclusively blaming ETA.

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

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

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

Randroide 09:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Raystorm : You are getting to know Randroide sooner or later. After all these cheerings and congratulations, the first paragraph continues saying the same non-sense and Randroide keeps insisting on using Trashorras as a mean to involve Guardia Civil, keeps insisting on using insolvent sources against RAND and keeps insisting to use your collaboration and mine to overcome the dificult situation he was regarding what he did during Christmas. I do not want to be cofrontational but it is imposible to work with Randroide and what we must do is to join southofwatford in his fight to reverse Randroide destruction.
So now we have a link from the most reliable source in the world (RAND) that explains who did it and what happened in Leganes. So I think that we can agree that from now on, everything Randroide does is done on purpose, and that if he keeps insisting in his bizarre ideas against RAND doctrine is not because he is a mislead honest guy but a dedicated activist who is not going to follow the simple rule of believing RAND instead of El Mundo. I hope this will open your eyes and we can come back to southofwatford track.--Igor21 11:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Igor21 wrote: You are getting to know Randroide sooner or later. After all these cheerings and congratulations, the first paragraph continues saying the same non-sense and Randroide keeps insisting on using Trashorras as a mean to involve Guardia Civil, keeps insisting on using insolvent sources against RAND
  • Moreover, RAND says nothing about confidents NOT being a part in the bombings. There´s not contradiction at all. I use nothing "against" RAND.
  • RAND is not the Pope, and I am not a catholic (that "RAND doctrine" line...). RAND is is just a source: A relevant source, a significant source, but not the only source on the fac of earth.

Randroide 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


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


That La Razon quote you pasted above: where does it grants validity or support to El Mundo's claims? In fact, where does it even doubt the indictment? The indictment says other islamists may have participated in the bombings but may not have been identified. The La Razon quote is understandable in that sense. Sorry, but it's way too ambiguous to count it as support for El Mundo. Wanting to know everything about the attack does not mean doubting what it already is known (via indictment).
From the refs you provided:
En contra de la tesis del Partido Socialista de que, tras el auto de procesamiento dictado por el juez Juan del Olmo, todo ha quedado «aclarado», el cuestionario del PP se extiende en la verdadera relevancia de algunos islamistas considerados como el núcleo duro de la célula y el de otros investigados que, finalmente, han quedado fuera de ese auto.
They do not doubt the indictment, they doubt the Socialist interpretation of it . In fact, they don't even doubt it, but 'ask questions' about islamist participation. Again, this does not support El Mundo claims.
Much more relevant is this ref:
Zaplana y Rubalcaba se refirieron a las informaciones publicadas por EL MUNDO, sin mencionar al diario. El 'popular' recuperó en su discurso lo que su partido considera "lagunas" de la investigación
Now, let's examine this sentence more closely. It does not imply that the results of the indictment are wrong, but that there might be things missing, which is big difference. The PP considers some things might be missing, but does not come out and say they doubt the validity of the indictment (ie, saying El Mundo is right).
Next ref:
El PP exigía al Gobierno que remitiese al Congreso informes sobre aspectos de la investigación que, a su juicio, no están aclarados
Su portavoz, Alicia Castro, acusó hoy al Gobierno de ser responsable de "informes falsos" sobre el 11-M y de "ocultación de pruebas"
*Grin* Again, as we can see, this party says there might be things missing from the indiotment, but do not say it is not valid. They accuse the government (obviously), but not the judicial investigation. This is an extremely big and important difference. El Mundo points to ETA, the indictment points to al-Qaeda. The PP _do not_ say the indictment is false, wrong or however you wanna call it. Ambiguously, they say there might be things missing from it. That may be true or not, but it goes a long way from supporting El Mundo's views.
Last ref you provided isn't good I'm afraid. A few days later it was found that that report had been manipulated by the famous 'peritos' to include ETA. The PP after that didn't say much more on the subject.
You may not want to call it a theory, but that's what it is. And I cannot paste verbatim from the indictment, you'll have to check the Auto ref yourself (it's just a few pages). Sorry.
Cheers Raystorm 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Southofwatford 09:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

  • The PP, the second spanish party (the first one in some vote intention polls nowadays -40% of the population-[63], 34.8% in other polls [64])
But Vicente Martin Pujalte, of the conservative opposition party, said they were still unconvinced by the "insufficient conclusion". He said: "To say this is an autonomous cell who simply decided [to carry out the bombing] one morning seems a weak argument." He described the accused as "secondary actors" in the conspiracy. [65]
Other references (in Spanish): [66][67][68]
  • Among many others:
On May 16, the Madrid daily El Mundo published a remarkable editorial that draws upon the paper’s ongoing investigation and contains information potentially as explosive as the 3/11 attacks themselves... (read complete article) [69]
...it is hard to envision anyone among those who died or those who have been arrested having enough planning skills and technical sophistication to have organised the highly synchronised attacks and having set up the sophisticated explosive devices that were detonated with cell phones. [70]
At worst, the information uncovered by El Mundo could mean that the deadly bombing was actually perpetrated with the complicity of the same Spanish police bomb squad, Tedax, that was subsequently charged with investigating the crime. [71]
  • The Cadena COPE radio station, owned by the Spanish Catholic Church.
This is not just a new chapter to the mysteries, the shady issues, the enigmas about 11-M ... We have reached an absolutely critical point ... All the "Sumario" [i.e., the explanation of facts provided by the Spanish Judiciary] is based upon Goma 2 ECO exploding in the trains ... If you can read there "nitroglicerine", the entire "Sumario" goes down (there is the original scientific police reports, missing from the "Sumario").
Excerpts taken from the first fifth of the COPE radio program COPE Audio file (Spanish) 5´35´´...//....7´42´´...//...10´54´´
  • Part of the Spanish judiciary, that, as "El Pais", said, "share their conspirative delirium about the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings" (El País, October 4th 2006 Pay per view link). The quoted "conspirative delirium" line is "El País" Newspeak for the individals that do not swallow the Indictment lock, stock and barrel.

ADDENDA: Groups supporting the airtightness of the Indictment[edit]

  • Part of the Spanish Judiciary.
The Spanish Judiciary, in words of Felipe González, sent to the jail to innocent individuals:
¿Cómo ve las condenas contra el general Galindo y Julen Elgorriaga?
Las veo injustas, porque tengo la convicción de que ellos no fueron los autores, ni de los secuestros, ni de los asesinatos. Más allá de la consideración sobre la inocencia o la culpabilidad, para mí, que soy un demócrata, lo que más me aterra es la quiebra del Estado de Derecho que pudiera suponer que unos inocentes estén en la cárcel. Prefiero que haya cuatro culpables en la calle que un inocente en prisión. Creo que no hay pruebas, y no critico a los jueces, porque creo que humanamente tienen una convicción, pero por eso no tienen derecho a condenar a unos inocentes.[73]
Political leaning?: Broadcaster Cadena Ser, which is close to opposition Socialist Party...[74]
A pair of blatant lies told by the Cadena SER:
    • Spain's spy chief, Jorge Dezcallar, quickly denied a radio report that said intelligence agents were "99 per cent sure" that Islamic elements, not Basque separatists, were responsible. Broadcaster Cadena Ser, which is close to opposition Socialist Party, cited sources at the national CNI intelligence agency as saying agents thought a 10-15 member cell placed the bombs on the trains and may now have fled the country. But Dezcallar, a Government appointee, told the national news agency Efe that agents did not favour one line of investigation over another.[75]
    • The Government said autopsies conducted on victims showed no signs of suicide bombings - a hallmark of Islamic militants [76].
The lie about the "suicide bombers" was created by the SER:
Cadena SER link 22.00 - 23.00 HORA 25.EL TERRORISTA SUICIDA. "Tres fuentes distintas de la lucha antiterrorista han confirmado a la Cadena SER que en el primer vagón del tren que estalló antes de llegar a Atocha, iba un terrorista suicida. Interior no lo confirma" Three different sources from the counter-terrorism unit confirmed to the Cadena SER that in the first railway coach there was a suicidal terrorist. Ministry of the Interior doest not confirm this claim'

Randroide 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Southofwatford 11:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


voice doubts

The word is underlined for a reason, Southofwatford.

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

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


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

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

Southofwatford 11:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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


In La Vanguardia:

[[78]]

Southofwatford 11:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


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


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



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

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

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

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

Randroide 12:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


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

Southofwatford 12:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


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

Subdivision Of The Main Article[edit]

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

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

Southofwatford 09:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randroide 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

....what all the serious sources say

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

I´ll ask you again:

Randroide 13:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

...despite counterterrorist successes by Spanish and French police and continued murders of suspected ETA members by the rightwing GAL [82]
Your "serious source" was (and is) totally clueless, Igor21: The GAL was not a rightwing group. The GAL was formed by the Spanish police, and there was a leftist PSOE government back then (See GAL or the final MIPT account about the GAL).
They are still so clueless that they still classify the GAL as "Right-Wing Conservative" left column "quick facts"

Read also this (highly ironic, really):

The group’s first action was the kidnapping and killing of José Antonio Lasa and Jose Antonio Zabala in October 1983, both suspected members of ETA. Their bodies were not found until 1995, buried in quicklime and showing clear signs of torture.[83]
Dou you know how your "serious source" (Right-Wing Conservative GAL, oh my God) knew about Lasa and Zabala?.
Because El Mundo (Spain) made investigative journalism about the nasty issue (sorry, the original 1995 "El Mundo" scoop is too old to be online).
Yup, "El Mundo" located the unidentified skeletons of Lasa and Zabala and made the DNA testing to identify them.

Another ironic issue:

This is a link [84] provided as a reference by the MIPT [85].
Which source is mentioned in the MIPT sponsored link?. Yup, "El Mundo":
Various newspaper investigations have also added to the intrigue.The Spanish daily El Mundo reported that agents from the Spanish military intelligence organisation Cesid were involved in Gal.It claimed that Cesid agents kidnapped a beggar and two drug-addicts as medical guinea-pigs in preparation for the kidnapping of a leading Basque terrorist, and dubbed their kidnap plan Operation Mengele - after the Nazi doctor who carried out medical experiments on Jews, vagrants and other victims of the Holocaust.

More incomplete data from the MIPT:

  • List of GAL attacks listed by the MIPT [86].
Your "serious source" must be taken "cum grano salis", Igor21. In fact, if you rely only on the MIPT, you are going to get an incomplete picture, a very seriously incomplete one. As we are going to see...

IRONY ON

More interesting things I learned from the MIPT

  • Santiago Brouard was never assasinated. Spanish newspapers told us otherwise, but, what the heck!, they should be wrong, because the MIPT says nothing about the issue! [87]. Or maybe is wrong the MIPT? [88]. Uh, Sorry, I disputed the undisputed authority, I must go to bed without dinner.
  • Yoyes (killed September 10th 1986) was never killed: Shes not listed in a list of attacks [89] so exhaustive as to include the burning of a single car in Bilbao in 1986 [90]. In fact Yoyes never existed: She´s not even listed by the MIPT [91][92]. The guys who made a film about her (official webpage) are, obviously, conspiracy theorists, Google is also infected by "Conspiracy theorists" [93]
  • The Hipercor 1987 attack [94] never took place [95]. We thought that it was the worst ETA attack until 1987, but we are obviously wrong, because the MIPT knows nothing about the issue.
This MIPT guys are so unreliable that they fail to list [96] the June 19th Hipercor attack (21 dead), but they list totally irrelevant 1987 attacks [97][98] with no casualties.
Frankly, after seeing what this MIPT/RAND guys report as important (the burning of a single empty car in Bilbao in 1986 [99]) and what they fail to even mention (the assasination of 21 individuals in a single attack in 1987 -Hipercor-), I must conclude that, if the memos leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were of this quality, it´s quite easy to grasp why the United States was clueless during the Vietnam war.

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

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

IRONY OFF

Have a nice day, Igor21.

Randroide 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Southofwatford 07:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


...all major news organisations will have to be rejected – at some point or other they all make mistakes. Likewise, it doesn’t seem fair to suggest that they are not suitable because they have not written anything about subjects that are not related to the Madrid bombings.
  • I never said that we must "reject" the MIPT. I only said that we must know that what the MIPT says is not set in stone, and that the absence of MIPT commentary aboput something means nothing.
  • Yup, all media makes mistakes.
  • The MIPT failed to see (vide supra examples I provided) the proverbial elephant in the bedroom in well documented and non disputed issues (it is well documented and non disputed that ETA killed 21 individuals in the Hipercor 1987 attack...etc). Moreover, the MIPT is not an sloppy general information newspaper, but pretends to be a "Terrorism Knowledge Base". It fails.

Randroide 08:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Objections On The Current State Of The Article[edit]

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

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

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

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

Southofwatford 08:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Discussion to remove unsourced text is NOT required.

BTW, unsourced text is NOT information.

Randroide 08:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


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

If you want to argue with RAND go ahead
  • I did not "argue" with RAND, Igor21.
  • I just presented a small florilége of RAND´s blatant omissions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randroide 11:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Just for the sake of record : My fully explicit argument is that in an issue so sensitive as international terrorism and regarding an incident that took place in 2004, if there exists amongst experts any shadow of doubt about the fact that the bombing was done by Islamists, this doubt would be discussed in MIPT. The thorough explanation that MIPT gives without any reference to El Mundo non-sense, is a proof that there is not any discussion about authorship of 11 March bombings and perfectly enables editors to skip in the core of the article any mention to conspirationist theories/doubts like e,g, the ones Randroide waves all the time.
If you want to water down the credibility of RAND using 20 years old incidents, the war of Vietnam or the second coming of Messiah is up to you and if someone has nothing better than play your games, go ahead. For me this question is finished and is a problem of wikipedia what to do with you, your theories and your tricks of dishonest lawyer.--Igor21 12:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making explicit what was implicit.

The issue is much clearer now.

Randroide 13:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive and going on hold for a bit[edit]

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

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


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

Southofwatford 18:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Back![edit]

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

More than being in hold, I have thrown my hat to the fire. If everybody in en.wikipedia wants El Mundo non-sensic absurd and idiotic conspiracy theories to be treated as if were something serious, there is nothing I can do. Randroide has shown clearly who he is and what is doing here and not only is not blocked as he should but you dialogue with him and you tell me that I am "confrontational" because I say what he evidently is. When he was cornered you helped him to deslegitimize Southofwatford and now we must start from square one. So as we say in Spain "You can can eat it with your own bread". I will try to help but I do not want to enbitter my life with this absurd issue anymore. Everybody serious knows what happened in Atocha and if someone is so moron to trust wikipedia who trust Randroide's toxic sources, for me is wrong but I am not God and I cannot be responsible for all the evil in the planet.--Igor21 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just very busy, not so much on hold. I was going to suggest that we take the issue of separating controversies to mediation (or arbitration) as the key issue of dispute - everything else we do is impacted by this. If we don't separate the controversies then the main article will be much more about the controversies than anything else. I believe that would be a disservice to those who come to Wikipedia seeking a core account of events. Southofwatford 13:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion rejected, Southofwatford: Sorry, but we tried to separate controversies (the famous multi colouor debate), and we failed: Consensus was impossible. In am not going to waste more time on that.
Moreover: If you want to delete controversial data from the main article, key issues (as, for instance, who made it) would be left out. Yes, "the Islamists and only the Islamists did it" is also a controversial assertion. If you must shut up about controversies in the "core" article, you must shut up about essential issues. Your suggestion is a no-go.
I suggested an easier and noncontroversial solution for the article size problem four weeks ago [104]: It is called Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings. The content in "Reactions" is, IMO , far less substantive, bordering on Cruft sometimes: For instance, what Fidel Castro said about the attacks.
Congratulations, Raystorm. Randroide 14:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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


What is at stake is wikipedia credibility not ours. So we must ask the comunity if they think that a local Spanish newspaper -that is known for having lied, bribed witnesses and organized schemes using crooked policemen to invent pieces of news- can be used here as a source. If they say "yes", for me is OK but I think they deserve the opportunity to stop El Mundo lies to be published. This was Durova suggestion to me and this is what we must do. Discuss with Randroide is completely useless. --Igor21 17:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC) PS:BTW, a good programmer can do a software that reacts like Randroide. He will find someone in the long term that blocks him as happened in Spanish wikipedia and then wikipedia will be a better place (at least a more truthful one).
Err, forgive me, who is Durova? :) And what's that about a software that reacts like Randroide? I'm afraid I don't understand. Cheers Igor21 Raystorm 18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well obviously there is no consensus on removal of non-controversial material from the article to make way for the conspiracy theories. Removing the Reactions section would probably solve the problem for about a week - then we would have to choose the next section to jettison (perhaps the Introduction?). We were actually not very far from achieving consensus on separation, although there were some important sticking points, presumably thats what mediation and arbitration procedures exist for. On the question of the trial, I don't think we want to get into doing daily updates based on it - this is not a news agency and the trial could easily last for 7-8 months. The best thing is to reflect the most important developments, but only when it becomes clear what the nature of those developments are; with a trial that is not always immediately evident. Of course some would say, and I am one of them, that the trial is the proper place for the controversial issues to be examined in depth. Southofwatford 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Southofwatford, could you please tell me where are the conspiracy theories in the article?. I see no one.
I have no intention to jettison any other section if "jettisoning" (your word, not mine) "Reactions" really solves the size problem.
Raystorm, I agree to a "generic" Mediation, where different editors present their allegations independently. Look at what happened to the RfC to see why. Uh, a side issue: Last time I checked I was "him", not "her" ; ) Randroide 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I'll check out the link then. And btw that was quite the cryptic remark! :-) Raystorm 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what Randroide means by a "generic" mediation - as I understand it, a mediation request simply has to define the point(s) of contention and then each editor will be free to define their position once the process begins. There is no requirement for us to present a joint position statement. I propose a process based on a single point of contention - the separation of controversies from the main article Southofwatford 10:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

You wrote it with the exact words, Southofwatford. I´ll bold the key word:
the structure of the article forms part of the dispute.
Yes, the structure of the article forms part of the dispute, but it is not the dispute.
My suggestion is a "generic" mediation common text, something like this:
There´s a long disagreement at 2004 Madrid train bombings. Mediation is requested.
And, after tha "generic text", this allegations section:
Allegations by Southofwatford...[]...Allegations by Raystorm...[]...Allegations by Igor21...[]...Allegations by Larean...[]...Allegations by Randroide

Randroide 10:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


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

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



Thank you for the text, Southofwatford.

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

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

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

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

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

Randroide 09:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


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


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

Suggestion [106]:

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

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

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

Randroide 08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


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

Southofwatford 15:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


("My") Bullet points:

  • What is a proper "source" for the article?.
    • Is El Mundo (Spain) a proper source for the article?.
    • Is PRISA media a proper source for the article?.
    • Is the Spanish Judiciary a somewhat superior source for the article?.
  • Should the "Controversies" section be segregated into a different article?.
    • If affirmative: What would be the proper title for the new article?.
    • Should all references to the "Controversies" section be segregated?.
    • Should this material be in the main article?. Should this material be mentioned at all in the main article?.
  • Should the "Reactions" section from the main article be segregated into a different article?.

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

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

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

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

Southofwatford wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Randroide 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My bullet points (without the blue parts) are

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

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


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

Those bullet point of you are not neutral.

  • Where is the other "narrative"?. I only see a "narrative" in the article: The Indictment.
  • I provided some world class sources voicing doubts about the Indictment "narrative" [107].
  • You fail to prove your grave accusations against the "local Spanish newspaper". You said nothing.

Try a better wording, Igor21. And be concise.

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

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

Ok, Randroide, thanks for the kind suggestions. This is my new wording:
  • At the light of what has been done in "11th of September attacks" and in many other articles, once it is clear that there are two incompatible narratives regarding what happened in Madrid the 11th of March 2004; bearing in mind that one of them is supported by all the world class sources and the other only by a local Spanish newspaper that has been caught fabricating proofs, distorting facts and contradicting public known primary sources: do you thing is a good idea to separate both narratives in two subarticles with the second being shorter and intitled "alternative theories"?
  • In your opinion, if the editors who base their narrative in the world class sources manage to proof the above statement, has English Wikipedia the resources to establish such structure?
If everybody agree I will put the blue links.

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


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

1). The structure of the article

2). Acceptability of sources

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


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


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


The article is currently useless[edit]

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

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

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

Sure?. Could you please point to the conspiranoic garbage?. I reviewed the article line by line and I found no such a thing. Paste blocks of text, please. If there is any "conspiranoic garbage" I missed, it should be removed. Thank you. Randroide 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
MaeseLeon : Before speaking with Randrodide check his historial and then decide if is worthwile or not.--Igor21 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Significant grammar and sentence structure editing needed[edit]

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

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

I'm not looking for "English" English or "American" English...I'm looking for consistent English. If there's "organization" in one place, there shouldn't be "organisation" elsewhere. And I really hope you don't claim this article was previously written in any proper or consistent form of English, it was really, really bad. akronpow 17:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not well written, the quality of writing more or less matches the quality of the content - but changing sceptical to skeptical doesn't really change that. The simple fact is that the article is subject to a prolonged dispute which when it finally gets resolved will permit substantial rewriting and correction of grammar. Given the nature of that dispute I believe its better to leave the article more or less as it is until resolution is achieved. Deletion of content should be discussed first. Southofwatford 18:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Just read this hidden text:

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

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

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

Sure- the paragraph is not only poorly written (three sentences containing zero relation to each other), but has no relevance to the topic of Controversy over Responsibility. The section reads much better without it. akronpow 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


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

To Igor21:

Igor21, please read:

Plase stop writing this kind of posts. Thank you. Randroide 10:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Randroide, your brandishing of WP:OWN every time someone objects to undiscussed changes in the article is monotonous and irrelevant. Perhaps you haven’t read that one either. I am not claiming ownership of anything. I leave that to those who think they are entitled to make substantial changes to disputed articles in the face of clearly expressed objections from other editors. Your use of the words good and faith in any intelligible combination is laughable and inappropriate given your recent behaviour. I maintain my objection, we could be about to go into a mediation process on the entire structure of this article and it seems reasonable to ask that other editors respect that. Southofwatford 12:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


I am sorry, Southofwatford, but I see no realistic prospect of mediation: I am waiting for mediation since October 2006 [109].

BTW, where are your bullet points???. What do you think about my bullet points [110]??? .

Randroide 12:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps if you spent less time on wild allegations of libel you would have more time to read the reply that I left yesterday on this very subject. You had the same opportunity as any other user to submit a mediation request before Christmas and instead you freely chose to reject a consensual solution and to start making unilateral edits to the article. The problem is you didn't wait, and you didn't take any initiative to resolve the dispute, instead you made it worse. Your choices Randroie, nobody forced you to do things this way. Southofwatford 13:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


I do not see your bullet points, Southofwatford. Randroide 13:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Ok. I have new bullet points.

  • Should the conspiracy theories be presented mixed what the official and mainstream account?
  • Can a local Spanish newspaper be taken as a source for the main account when this newspaper has been caught factoring proofs and is contradicting all the rest of sources?

I hope this is balanced enough since it is not saying nothing about any particular newspaper but just asking for "what if".--Igor21 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


My bullet points copied and pasted from further up the page:

1). The structure of the article

2). Acceptability of sources

and a new 3rd one

3). POV issues with the existing article

Southofwatford 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


You bullet points are more "generic" than mine, Southofwatford, so I drop my points and I accept yours.

If those bullet points of you (and not Igor21´s) are the bullet points to be presented, we are ready to go. Randroide 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Well personally I think that Igor21's points also fit inside these generic bullet points - after all these points are only to present the issues for mediation, once the process begins we can each present the arguments that we want to be heard on each one of them. Igor, what do you think? Southofwatford 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Today the trial began. I've been patrolling the different news sources: the New York Times and the Washington Post (USA media) only mention islamist authorship of the attack, inspired by al-Qaeda. UK media also make no reference to ETA even though they do mention the atmosphere of division on which the trial begins. And in Spanish media I have heard El Mundo's theory being referred to as a 'conspiracy theory'. This will be important for the RfM (per WP:UW). Cheers Raystorm 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Raystorm, are you in agreement with the proposed bullet points for a mediation request? Please let us know if you want to add anything. Cheers. Southofwatford 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Everybody knows my opinion but at this point I do not want to be part of the problem. This issue is so clear and the ideas of El Mundo so bizarre that there are probably many ways to achieve a truthful article. So I agree with whatever Southofwatford finds sensible. My only obsession is that the comunity of wikipedia must have the right to DECIDE if the misdoings and lies of El Mundo merit this newspaper to be ruled out as source. We must find a way to sintetize the question so the interested wikipedists can judge what is this newspaper and how a toxic source can be. If afterwards it is decided to put his nonsense at the same level than the police reports, indictment, RAND, major american newspapers, etc... (or even to name it in a sub-article as in 9/11) it would be no more our responsability since we would have done everything in our hand.--Igor21 10:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Well I think we are ready to go on a RfM. I'll leave it another day for any last minute input or suggestions from other editors involved. If nobody has anything else to add I will submit the request for mediation on Sunday based on the 3 bullet points listed above. Southofwatford 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


RfM?. What RfM?. We missed the simpler "first step" RfC. I think that RfC is a much hassle-free option than the more complex and "scalated" RfM.

Moreover, rereading the RfM instructions:

Before requesting formal mediation, parties should have made an attempt at some form of informal resolution; disputes that have not attempted informal resolution may be rejected with the direction to attempt informal resolution. Parties may find Requests for Comment or the Mediation Cabal useful steps prior to formal mediation. WP:RFM

We matured and mellowed in the last months. I think that RfC is the way to go. Randroide 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Since the end of January we have been discussing a mediation process, not an RFC - and any reading of the discussion, in which you have participated, makes that completely clear. We tried an RFC process and that failed completely. I tried to launch a mediation process back in December and your rampage through the rules in early January left that one dead in the water. Now I am trying again and you want to return to the beginning? We have had 7 months of dispute on this article and I think that if you do not agree to a mediation process then the only realistic alternative we have left is arbitration. Of course it's possible that the mediation process may be rejected, but I think anyone who takes into account the long running nature of the dispute here will realise that we need an effective way of bringing it towards an end rather than endlessly repeating the same cycle. Southofwatford 10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Frankly, after rereading the aforementioned rules, I think that RfC is the way to go.

Moreover, if we are calm enough to write neutral bullet points, I see no reason for the RfM.

My January 2007 "rampage" (your word, not mine) is under Wikipedia rules Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive71#2004_Madrid_train_bombings, your January massive deletion of sourced text and posting of unsourced lines was not [111]. C Randroide 11:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Well the link you provided is indeed a telling one for assessing our situation. One the one hand it demonstrates very precisely the absence of the "maturity" that you claim exists, it was a direct personal attack on me disguised as a bogus request for clarification. You of course rejected my suggestion of seeking genuine clarification on the issue by making a joint request. But look at Durova's reply:

An arbitration request becomes reasonable after months of fruitless WP:DR.

I agree, if there is to be no mediation (again!) then I think that arbitration is an appropriate way to go. If you had read the rules a few months ago we could have had an RFC.

Southofwatford 11:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


We can have a RfC right now. I see no reason to "escalate" to the RfM.

My "personal attack" (your words, not mine) on you was supported by 10 diffs to your actions here, at the English Wikipedia. If you do not like what you see in a mirror reflecting your actions, it´s not my fault.

WP:DR was never folowed to the point of a RfC. Randroide 12:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


You always wait until the last minute when something is ready to go on dispute resolution before suddenly raising objections - two weeks of discussion over a mediation request, in which you (or another Randriode) have particpated, and now you say you want an RFC. Well, its in your hands, if you can make a neutral non-confrontational proposal based on the Wikipedia guidelines I will support it. If you make one based on your position during my previous and futile attempt to promote an RFC, then I am opposed to it. Frankly, I don't believe an RFC will solve the dispute - but I will not block a reasonable proposal. Southofwatford 12:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


As an editor involved in this discussion for many months and having spent many hours exchanging with the other editors, it is clear for me that Randroide has forced us to waste some months with a dialectic maneouver. If this is against wikipedia rules or not, it is beyond my understanding to say. But what is clear for me is that if we start now an RFC, and either fails or it is blocked again by Randroide, the situation will force an RFA whatever Randroide says then. To write an Enciclopedia is a task of centuries. I do not mind to spend some years if I can be sure of not walking over my own steps.--Igor21 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough in this article on the newspaper El Mundo, considering it is the main supporter of alternative theories, on the responsibility for the 11-M attacks. More should be written on their (lack of) credibility. I have found nothing in the article regarding the bribed`policemen, for example, which completely ruined the little credibility this newspaper had. Perhaps as background to the fact that the COPE is supporting this mediatic campaign, it should perhaps be useful to explain the animosity of the Catholic church in Spain towards the PSOE.--Burgas00 03:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up, POV & trial subsection[edit]

The current state of the article is just discouraging. After a quick look on the talk page, I hope the problem doesn't arise from only one person. If it is the case, they are bureaucratic solutions, although tiring and not my cup of tea. I created a subsection for the trial, I was surprised that it wasn't there. A few comments from a quick overview:

  • The "Reactions" subsection might be better in the "Aftermaths" article — and I don't understand why the "arrest" subsection is in the Aftermath article.
  • For a start in trying to solve the POV problem, and for the sanity of you guys and to not totally deter foreign readers, you might want to try to agree in a clear-cut, non-controversial introduction.
  • El Mundo. Beside, honestly I did not follow the matter, and I don't know to which extent El Mundo participated in this campaign, but it is first of all wrong to say that this newspaper has no credibility at all (quite to the contrary, although it may have engaged on this issue in a loosing battle), and second it is Wikipedia that lose credibility in judging the value and the point of view of an entire newspaper (several tens of people with various and contradictory ideas) on a sole article. In particular, Pedro J. Ramírez can claim what he want, he is "only" director of the newspaper. Director can sometimes pit themselves against all their employees (i.e. see debate in Libération and Charlie Hebdo concerning the treating of the Treaty for a European Constitution). All in all, in accordance with WP:CS, rather than putting an El Mundo article to back-up claims that it support this campaign (which it obviously does to some extent - the question is, for a person such as me who is foreign to the question but kind of knew that El Mundo supported this controversial thesis - to which extent?), we need (Wikipedians :) to find another, exterior source, which criticizes (or applaudes - two are even better) El Mundo for engaging in this campaign. It would be also very interesting to have some internal testimony from El Mundo reporters (again, see the French newspapers hereabove).
  • Tiny detail: note 49 mix English & French.
  • Subsection on "explosives": we can read this: "That day, El Mundo claimed that the news agencies EFE and Europa Press and the newspapers Gara and ABC also cited the presence of Nitroglycerine. ABC article cited by "El Mundo" [75]. ABC article mentioning the presence of Nitroglycerine, cited by "El Mundo" [76]." This is not a way to write & present things. Maybe: "That day, El Mundo claimed that ABC had refered to nitroglycerine in its XX 2006 article [76] and XY 2006 article [77]."
  • "Muslim extremists." I think this ought to be replaced either by Islamists or by Muslim fundamentalists. This might sound strange, but it is my understanding that "Muslim" refers to faith, whereas "Islamism" is a theological-political ideology. "Fundamentalism", be it Muslim, Christian or New Age deep ecology, refers to the complete refusal of secularism and of distinction between the political & the religious sphere. So, if you follow my reasoning, "extremist" is a word that belong to the political field, and "Muslim" to the religious, personal, field. I could go on arguing the point to the absurd, limit-like treshold, where a "Muslim extremist" would be in fact someone who took his faith really "too seriously" and would be obsessed with it (but without necessarily taking it out on the political field). I said I could argue until this absurd threshold, don't jump on me! All in all, I think the most important thing is trying to have the important facts in the introduction, if someone dedicates time to make a proposal, I'm sure we could then submit it to some kind of vote (i.e. see the introduction of Hamas, which, personally, many people, including me, disagree with, but which has stayed the same for a very long time, because there is some informal voting blocking any attempt to change it. While this discourage people like me who disagree with it (mainly because of lack of contextual reasons), it has the merit of being more than two sentences and of being stable). Que no se desesperan, ¡venga! Tazmaniacs 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Tazmaniacs : The controversy is so absurd that we need RFC to say that was done by islamists. El Mundo credibility can be mesured by how many newspapers outside Spain give them the benefit of doubt . Because nobody gives them any credibility, it is very dificult to find quotations against. I do not see the point in accepting as a source a newspaper that is not a source for anything except itself and his readers who probably do not believe totally in these absurd theories but love the way that these lies embarrasse the governement of Spain.--Igor21 17:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, I could almost write a book in reply to the points you make - but I doubt that anyone would read it. Non "bureaucratic" solutions were tried for several months before going for more official dispute resolution, which has been systematically blocked. At the moment, after trying for several months to resolve the dispute by standard Wikipedia procedures starting from the beginning, I need someone to convince me that there is a solution here that does not involve arbitration. In my opinion this is about one user and his determination to use Wikipedia as a platform for his political opinions - the El Mundo issue is important but secondary to that. I will explain my reasons in more detail tomorrow. Southofwatford 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Taszmaniacs: Thank you very much for your work in the article. Per WP:OWN and per WP:BOLD, I encourage you to work in this article.

  • What´s wrong with the introduction?. IMO, It´s clear cut. It can NOT be "noncontroversial" and faithful, because this issue IS controversial.
  • I agree with you with the "Islamists" wording issue. You have a point.
  • Note 49 uses a French source. There´s a Wikipedia policy about non-English sources: The original should be cited, to allow the reader and other editors to check the accuracy of the translations.
  • Subsection on "explosives": I wrote that after a two hours hunt for those elusive sources cited by "El Mundo". If you want to rewrite into a more fluid text preserving all the sources and all the data, please go ahead.

To Igor21 and Southofwatford: You provided no diffs proving my allegued wrongdoings, so you said nothing, so I reply you nothing. I am tired of searching and pasting diffs proving your falsehoods. Enough is enough.

Why we are not in the RfC?. We had a "minimalistic" and neutral bullet points gently provided by Southofwatford. I do not know why we are not in the RfC.

To Igor21: Frankly, Igor21: I find your posts increasingly incoherent.

Igor21 wrote: The controversy is so absurd that we need RFC to say that was done by islamists
  • We never had a RfC.
  • The article already says that Islamists made it: The perpetrators were local Islamic extremists... (Introduction)

Randroide 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Randroide : You have so many diffs doing controversial things that would be downwater the case to make a selection. Regarding introduction, the two criminals who sold the explosive were not part of the cell and the fact that were being used as bribed informers by the police in drug smugling investigations, is completely irrelevant. Only your obsesion with a hidden conspiration can justify its presence in the introduction to suggest. The sugestion comes from the fact that are in the introduction so one thing feeds the other that is exaclty what wikipedia must not do. You added this during Christmas in a more than controversial editing supported by quotes that proof that the phrases are true but not the reason why you want them there that is to maintain alive in wikipedia a delirant conspiracy theory that must be in a subarticle (whith a title that can be discused)--Igor21 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Randroide, I don’t follow your practice of using highly selective diffs to misrepresent past discussions we have had. I don’t think it is any secret that you were in contact with the Peones Negros to get conspiracy theory material – I can present the diffs if you really insist on it. The Peones Negros are of course an extremely partisan group of political activists who promote conspiracy theories about the bombings. I also don’t think it’s any secret that you have tried to pass off their leader, Luis del Pino, as an acceptable source for information in the article. Of course he is not.

We were not in an RFC process and you know it – 2 weeks discussing a mediation proposal and at the very last minute you try to change it to an RFC. Bullet points are in any case entirely inappropriate for an RFC because they offer no explanation of the issues for which other editors are invited to comment. They are what is required for a mediation proposal, at some point you appear to have confused the two things. Southofwatford 12:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Randroide to Igor21: Breaching the DNT issue[edit]

Igor21 wrote (personal attacks aside):
...the two criminals who sold the explosive were not part of the cell and the fact that were being used as bribed informers by the police in drug smugling investigations, is completely irrelevant
  • Without explosives (i.e., without the confidents), there´s no "cell".
  • The "two criminals who sold the explosive" sold Goma-2 ECO. Goma-2 ECO has not dinitro toluene (DNT) Page 51, and, as you know, DNT was found (almost three years after the attacks!!!, shame on Spain) in the remains of the trains [112]. To sum up: There´s another (unknown, so far) provider of another (unknown, so far) explosive.
  • Rafa Zouhier, part of what you call the "core of the cell", was also a confident [113][114]
  • You "completely irrelevant" evaluation is your Point Of View. There are other Points Of View, and those POV (you know?) have been published in what Wikipedia calls "sources". I do not want to delete POVs I disagree with. I suggest you to do the same as me, and you´ll live a happier life (I say it seriously).

PD: You often rant against the alleged "lack of echo" that "El Mundo" has. Well, here you have some recent "echo": [115][www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1771762/posts][www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1741482/posts][116][117][118][119][120]. For older "echo", see Talk:2004_Madrid_train_bombings/Controversies_about_11M-2004:Sources_in_english.

Randroide 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Well we couldn’t have a better example of the distortion of issues that we get from the conspiracy theorist than the tests on the explosives.

Relevant facts omitted by Randroide:

- DNT has been found in the samples of Goma 2 Eco that have been tested for the trial, including the master samples provided by the manufacturer for comparison purposes.

- No evidence identifying any other explosive has yet been discovered in the tested samples

- The tests have not yet concluded, they are going to compare against Titadine and we await the results with interest.

- Nitroglycerine has not been identified in the sites of the explosions.

With highly selective use of sources it is possible for a conspiracy theorist to present an entirely distorted picture of events. The section currently in the article on the explosives is already completely out of date and demonstrates how the conspiracy theorists change horses every time they hit an obstacle. No nitroglycerine, well then we need something else to try and suggest, without evidence, the presence of another explosive. They also found cocaine by the way, perhaps we can invent something around that?

"There´s another (unknown, so far) provider of another (unknown, so far) explosive."

A conclusion completely unsupported by the evidence provided - classic conspiracy theorist behaviour.


Southofwatford 09:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Yes Randroide, there are other POV and one of them is the POV of conspirationists that must be in a subarticle since is less than minoritary in Spain and nearly inexistent in the rest of the world.--Igor21 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Well the debate about the explosives focuses nicely on the key issues we need to resolve to be able to do anything on this page.

First of all on the structure of the article. Just on the explosives issue alone it is perfectly possible to write a piece that would be similar to the size of the entire article at the moment. If you look at the amount of space occupied by the fictional “smoking gun” about nytroglycerine, just imagine how big this section is going to get when we start including genuine information from the actual tests that have been carried out for the trial. Then add to this the examination that the explosives issue will undoubtedly receive during the trial. This is just one issue, there are many more that are barely touched on at the moment because of this long-running dispute. Without separation of these issues from the main article it is impossible to have a sustainable core article that explains the key events in a straightforward way.

Tazmaniacs asks why we don’t have a decent introduction for the article – the fact is we did have such an introduction, I wrote it last summer. It has been wrecked by those who think that the first paragraph of the article is the key place for getting in early mentions of their pet issues. It is indicative of what will happen to the entire article unless we do something to separate those issues out and concentrate on having a core article that actually serves some purpose as an encyclopaedic reference. All involved in the dispute at the different times have supported this solution except for Randroide, who is happy to remove any non-controversial section from the main article to make more space for the conspiracy theories. Southofwatford 08:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Now we move on to the question of valid sources, I will use the example of the explosives again. It is quite possible to write an account of the explosives issue that is entirely false using sources from El Mundo. If we just take the latest issue that Randroide has raised for us, the DNT found in the sample of Goma 2 Eco, El Mundo has adopted the same position that Randroide has, and tried to claim that the presence of DNT must mean the presence of another explosive. This claim does not stand up to any kind of critical examination and is accepted only by those who want to believe in the presence of another explosive.

So how should we present the issue in Wikipedia? Are we obliged to “balance” the results of scientific tests carried out on samples recovered from the different sites, with the unsubstantiated claims of a newspaper that makes accusations and claims that they simply cannot back up with facts? I have never completely opposed the use of El Mundo as a source, but I do believe that as editors of an article that is supposed to be a reliable reference we are obliged to make some sort of assessment of the reliability of the information we are using as sources. I also think that we can include sources that we know contain false information – provided that we make it clear in the article that the information is not correct. What I find unacceptable is to knowingly include false or unsubstantiated claims just because they come from El Mundo and because they support the political prejudices of a single editor.

I still see no reason why this dispute should not now go to arbitration. Southofwatford 09:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Seems that you have a problem opening PDFs, Southofwatford.

Don´t worry, I´ll paste here the text from the aforelinked PDF:

...ya que la reducción primeramente deseada se ha extendido hasta la eliminación total del DNT, lo cual ha permitido el desarrollo de un nuevo producto denominado Goma 2ECO (Goma sin DNT) por UEE. Page 51-52

"Total elimination of DNT", "Goma-2 ECO (Goma-2 without DNT)".

That´s what the manufacturer says. The paper is endorsed by the Spanish Industry department.

  • There was DNT on the trains... (detected...three years after the attacks!!!)
  • ...so other thing apart from Goma-2 ECO exploded there
  • ...and the "Islamists" had only access to Goma-2 ECO.

The Indictment should be restarted from scratch.

If you want to create a "conspiracy theory" about an Explosives manufacturer lying during years about the composition of its products, go ahead. I am not going to follow you.

I am not going to debunk your other sophistries because you did not present sources, and, frankly, I am fed up of discussion about opinions.

I prefer a RfC. We can go to an WP:RfC right now if wou want that. Randroide 14:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


I have no problem with opening pdf’s Randroide, but the document you are citing is not the results of the tests on the explosives carried out for the trial. This one is the results of those tests:

[121]

Once you have managed to open and read this document tell me which of the following is not true and why:

- DNT has been found in the samples of Goma 2 Eco that have been tested for the trial, including the master samples provided by the manufacturer for comparison purposes.

- No evidence identifying any other explosive has yet been discovered in the tested samples

- The tests have not yet concluded, they are going to compare against Titadine and we await the results with interest.

- Nitroglycerine has not been identified in the sites of the explosions.

Primary sources Randroide, not the peones negros web page. I note your evasions on the other points I made.

We cannot go to an RFC because there is no structured proposal for an RFC - we spent the last two weeks discussing a request for mediation and there is a proposal on the table for that. A pity in a way, you could have had at least one opportunity to claim that you had actually done something to resolve the dispute - a lost opportunity.


DNT has been found in the samples of Goma 2 Eco that have been tested for the trial, including the master samples provided by the manufacturer for comparison purposes.

Yup. And DNT was not found in another tests performed by the Guardia Civil [122]. Secondary source explaining the primary source [123]. AFAIK this is the first time in history that DNT appears in an analysis of Goma-2 ECO. Why?.

We have a contradiction here: The manufacturer says Goma-2 ECO is Goma-2 with no DNT, and in a particular analysis by the Spanish police (not in another) some Spanish policemen found DNT. Why?.

No evidence identifying any other explosive has yet been discovered in the tested samples

False. DNT is not compatible with Goma-2 ECO. It is with Goma-2 EC or with some titadynes [124].

Nitroglycerine has not been identified in the sites of the explosions.

I never said the opposite (diff to prove me wrong please, please).

OTOH, the three year old samples were cleaned with water and ketone [125].

Could you please tell me why the first analysis of the explosions in the trains is made three years after the attacks and with tampered (water and ketone) samples? [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1771762/posts].

Primary sources Randroide, not the peones negros web page.
  • First: I cited no peones negros page (diff to prove me wrong, please), but a industrial webpage containing the PDF with the Goma-2 ECO manufacturer statement.
  • Second: You cited no primary source, but a pdf tampered by ABC (see watermark).
  • Third: I suppose you ignore this: You fail into WP:NOR:
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source because experts have the resources required for interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material

Again with your ABC tampered PDF: You said nothing, because you cited no secondary source explaining that PDF.

I note your evasions on the other points I made.

You noted something that it is not there. Without sources you say nothing and I reply you nothing: We are here to discuss sources, not our personal opinions. OTOH, I noted your evasion no citing sources.

We cannot go to an RFC because there is no structured proposal for an RFC

OK, here you have a proposal:

    • About what is a proper source for the article.
    • About wether the "Controversies section" should be segregated or not.
    • About how, in case of a "yes", that segregation should be made.
    • About wether new "Controversies" should be included or not.
    • About the wording treating "Controversies".
A pity in a way, you could have had at least one opportunity to claim that you had actually done something to resolve the dispute - a lost opportunity.

You have a strange sense of humor (I´ll take it as a joke), Southofwatford. Writing this line after writing that one.

Randroide 09:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Tampered with? Please clarify what you are trying to suggest Randroide? Be specific about any information in the report which has been changed. Don't go into crude smear attempts, if you have a specific accusation that you can back up with evidence then make it.

I have no idea why the Guardia Civil did not find DNT, perhaps they didn't test for it? Those tests were not the same as those that have been carried out now on all of the stored samples from different sites. The more recent tests have been carried out in much more open and transparent circumstances than any others, and have even been open to the presence of scientists representing groups sympathetic to the conspiracy theories. So these tests are not direectly comparable, although there is no contradiction between them, just because in one they have found a substace they didn't find in another. It depends on the tests they carried out.

What effect exactly does the washing of the samples have on the results, I'm afraid I'm not an expert and I need your expertise on this matter?

You cannot accept that DNT has been found in the Goma 2 Eco and then say that my other statement is false - if DNT is present in these samples of Goma 2 Eco then it is absolutely clear following basic logical deduction that the presence of DNT is not indicative of the presence of another explosive. Why do I have the feeling that if you buy a tin of red paint and you open it to find green paint, you will continue to insist it must be red because it says so on the label? For you it means there has to be another explosive present because you want to believe it, the facts of this report do not support you. My statement is factually correct based on this report, and on the Guardia Civil report you cite. So now you have to reject both of them.

Your assertion that another explosive must have been used is an opinion and nothing else - you have provided no fact demonstrating it. Not a single one. Faith is not enough here, I want to see evidence. On nitroglycerine, I didn't suggest that you had stated it was present, I just included that because we have had months of conspiracy theories shouting about nitroglycerine based on minimal evidence (no tests that I am aware of have found nitroglycerine) and all because the conspiracy theorists want to find Titadine - well its still not there. Despite its absence it dominates the content of the article on the explosives issue, a sign of how POV this article currently is.

On secondary sources, I can cite the ABC article which provided the link to the pdf, if it makes you feel happier - it's not a problem.

On the RFC it looks like you have spent as much as a minute preparing your minimalist proposal but I will support it - go ahead and submit it. What I said about you was not a joke, you have been entirely responsible in my opinion for the failure of one RFC proposal and two mediation proposals - all of these would have been submitted if it had not been for your actions. The joke is that you accuse other people of stonewalling. No amount of highly selective use of diffs changes the reality of this. Southofwatford 10:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Tampered with? Please clarify what you are trying to suggest Randroide? Be specific about any information in the report which has been changed. Don't go into crude smear attempts

I go into "crude" nothing. AFAIK no information has been changed, ABC added a watermark, so it is not a "primary source", but a secondary one. And, BTW, a proper one.

I have no idea why the Guardia Civil did not find DNT, perhaps they didn't test for it?

Wrong. They found DNT in the Goma-2 EC sample. Plase read the complete PDF. It is a pain in the neck (and in the eyes: the digitalization is so so), but it is very important. Please, do it.

Those tests were not the same as those that have been carried out now on all of the stored samples from different sites. The more recent tests have been carried out in much more open and transparent circumstances than any others, and have even been open to the presence of scientists representing groups sympathetic to the conspiracy theories. So these tests are not direectly comparable, although there is no contradiction between them, just because in one they have found a substace they didn't find in another. It depends on the tests they carried out.

Where are your sources for these claims?.

Your assertion that another explosive must have been used is an opinion and nothing else - you have provided no fact demonstrating it. Not a single one. Faith is not enough here, I want to see evidence. On nitroglycerine, I didn't suggest that you had stated it was present, I just included that because we have had months of conspiracy theories shouting about nitroglycerine based on minimal evidence (no tests that I am aware of have found nitroglycerine) and all because the conspiracy theorists want to find Titadine - well its still not there. Despite its absence it dominates the content of the article on the explosives issue, a sign of how POV this article currently is.

Where are your sources for these claims?.

On secondary sources, I can cite the ABC article which provided the link to the pdf, if it makes you feel happier - it's not a problem.

Yes, much happier. Thank you. BTW, where´s the article?.

On the RFC it looks like you have spent as much as a minute preparing your minimalist proposal but I will support it - go ahead and submit it.

In fact less than a minute. No more time is needed.

We need the agreement from the other editors. Disputes among two editors are solved by another different way: WP:Third opinion.

I suggest to wait until monday. If the other editors agree, we go to the RfC. If they do not show, to Third Opinion.

What I said about you was not a joke, you have been entirely responsible in my opinion for the failure of one RFC proposal and two mediation proposals - all of these would have been submitted if it had not been for your actions.

Thank you for the qualifier.

IMO you and Igor21 had the responsability for the failures.~But we are not here to tall about opinions, but about facts.

Randroide 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Don't make absurd demands for sources - I cannot source the absence of evidence for something. If you claim that another explosive was present then it is down to you to provide evidence for that assertion. So far you have not done so. Logically you should believe the following assertion:

The presence of DNT in samples of Goma 2 Eco provided by the manufacturer demonstrates the use of another explosive in the train bombings

To me this statement makes no logical sense at all, but it is effectively what you are asserting - so prove it.

My sources on the nature of the tests carried out are both PDF documents - the Guardia Civil and the one from the latest tests. Are you telling me they did exactly the same tests on all the same samples?

On the RFC, I expect an unequivocal commitment on your part to respect the disputed nature of this page while we go through dispute resolution. I have no problem making such a commitment, but you have a tendency to "forget" that the article is disputed.


Don't make absurd demands for sources - I cannot source the absence of evidence for something.

Don´t talk nonsense, please. Your unsourced affirmative assertions:

  • Those tests were not the same as those that have been carried out now on all of the stored samples from different sites.
  • The more recent tests have been carried out in much more open and transparent circumstances than any others, and have even been open to the presence of scientists representing groups sympathetic to the conspiracy theories.
  • So these tests are not direectly comparable, although there is no contradiction between them, just because in one they have found a substace they didn't find in another.
To me this statement makes no logical sense at all, but it is effectively what you are asserting - so prove it.

I have nothing to prove. A source said that. That´s enough for Wikipedia. This is not your (not mine) personal website. You do not stablish your personal (not me mine) yardstick for proof.

My sources on the nature of the tests carried out are both PDF documents - the Guardia Civil and the one from the latest tests. Are you telling me they did exactly the same tests on all the same samples?

The Guardia Civil made a forensic analysis of explosives. DNT was found on the Goma-2 EC, and NOT in the Goma-2 ECO. They did exactly the same tests?. I do not know. I only know that they did not detect DNT in the Goma-2 ECO.

On the RFC, I expect an unequivocal commitment on your part to respect the disputed nature of this page while we go through dispute resolution. I have no problem making such a commitment, but you have a tendency to "forget" that the article is disputed.

You can exprect from me an unequivocal commitment to abide by Wikipedia policies.

I "forgot" nothing: There has never been a dispute resolution for this page.

You forgot (or simply ignored) WP:OWN.

Randroide 11:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


No, you can't pretend that you can introduce false or unsubstantiated claims just because you have a source - you repeatedly reverted a perfectly legitimate edit I made on other pages by, wrongly, claiming that I was introducing false information. Otherwise we can fill this article with complete rubbish, I can find every source that contains factual errors and quote them in the article - and by your criteria I am fully justified in doing so. The claim that another explosive was used is not backed up by evidence - you cannot use opinion pieces to source alleged facts, however much you might desire them to be true.

Given that you inappropriately quote WP:OWN so often, maybe it is time you actually read it:

Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack.

BTW, there was an agreed format for a request for mediation on the table the last time you decided to unilaterally edit the article. No amount of selective diffs will alter that simple truth - you misrepresent sources and you misrepresent the history of our discussion.

THe ABC source. [[126]]

Southofwatford 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


...you can't pretend that you can introduce false or unsubstantiated claims just because you have a source

You do not understand how Wikipedia works.

The claims you believe are "false or unsubstantiated" are sourced, so they belong to the Wikipedia article.

For instance: I believe that "ABC" and "El Pais" claims are "false or unsubstantiated", but I do not pretend to delete those claims, because are sourced. You got it?.

...you repeatedly reverted a perfectly legitimate edit I made on other pages by, wrongly, claiming that I was introducing false information

Please provide diffs to show that you had no source. That´s the big difference. Your edit was "perfectly ILlegitimate".

I can find every source that contains factual errors and quote them in the article - and by your criteria I am fully justified in doing so

My criteria not: Wikipedia´s criteria. And yes, you can do that: If it is sourced is OK. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Again, you fail to understand how Wikipedia works.

...the last time you decided to unilaterally edit the article

If any of my edits is against Wikipedia policies, please revert that edit.

No "permission" is needed to work under Wikipedia policies. You´ll see it in March 1st, with RfC or without RfC, I will delete (per Wikipedia:Verifiability) all unsourced claims about the attacks and the aftermath.

Changed my mind. I just did it.Randroide 13:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I intended no personal attack, and WP:OWN was cited first about your demand by an administrator Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive71#2004_Madrid_train_bombings, not by me.

Randroide 12:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Your edits were contested, you ignored those objections and refused to accept the disputed nature of the page. We were in a dispute resolution process at the time. That is against Wikipedia policies on dispute resolution. Failure to heed the objections of others is always against Wikipedia policies, whether in dispute resolution or not.

You cannot pick and choose the rules you choose to obey a la carte. If you make significant unilateral changes to a disputed article without attempting to discuss those changes I will revert them and submit the dispute immediately to arbitration. Your ultimatum has no place in Wikipedia, there is no Wikipedia policy that says Randroide can do what he likes. You have now acted in a way which prolongs further the resolution of the dispute, and you have to accept all the consequences of your own decisions.

On my edit - you repeatedly reverted to a text that contained the same, badly inserted, source - which of course was a text favouring the conspiracy theories. I had amended that text with a more accurate statement. The original insertion was not mine and you know it, but the demands of manipulation mean you have to keep ignoring the facts.

There was no response to any demand made by me from an administrator - you deliberately evaded making a joint approach to an administrator so you could launch a personal attack based on your partial and sectarian misuse of diffs. The issue was never presented. Southofwatford 12:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


We were in a dispute resolution process at the time.
You are lying, man

If I am the liar, please provide link to that dispute resolution in process in january 2007.

On my edit - you repeatedly reverted to a text that contained the same, badly inserted, source...

No diffs, you said nothing.

Moreover: That issue should be discussed there, not here.

Randroide 12:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


When I went away in the middle of December there was an agreement on a set of bullet points to present for mediation. You, or another Randroide - I really am starting to believe there must be several of you, agreed those points, and agreed to the process. Go on, call me a liar again.Southofwatford 13:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Points were never presented. There was never a mediation process.Randroide 13:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


No, because you didn't present them - something you could have easily done, I had done all the donkey work of sorting out agreement on what to present and you......did nothing, except take advantage of an opportunity to start imposing your own changes on the article.

We do not need to be in a formal process to be in dispute resolution, see WP:DR. In reality we have been in a dispute resolution process since we started to try and separate the controversies, the fact that you had to be virtually forced into the process is a telling, but incidental detail. I am not aware of anything in Wikipedia that permits you to override dispute resolution procedures by citing another, different, rule. Southofwatford 13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Ok. Randroide, new tactic. Now you switch from content issues to procedure issues continuously to continue bloking the removal of your more than controversial Christmas addings. What continues the same are the oceans of wasted ink to earn a week more of conspirationism in the main article.

1)Regarding content : The DNT is in traces and was caused by the defective manufacturing of the explosive. In fact it has become the proof that the explosive come from the mine since the explosive provided from the manufacturing has the same defects than the one used in the trains. (BTW all the absurdity about nitroglycerine has desapeared after months of the annoying song "Manzano said..." and now you say "I never said". Terrific.).

2)About procedures : It is clear that you are a minoritary opnion here and we need someone to tell you so to accept that your conspirationist ideas must go in subarticle.

Southofwatford : Please lead an RFC or RFA and I will follow.

--Igor21 13:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Igor21. Nice to hear that you agree with the proposed RfC.

About the DNT: You provided no sources, so you said nothing.

BTW, I deleted unsourced claims at Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings. I said I was going to wait until MArch 1st, but I changed my mind.

  • Counting noses I am a minority.
  • Counting edits and sources provided I am the majority.

Randroide 13:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote:

I am not aware of anything in Wikipedia that permits you to override dispute resolution procedures by citing another, different, rule.

An administrator expressed a different evaluation of the case [127].

With Igor21 we are three, so we can go to a RfC. I suggest to wait for Raystorm (Burgas00?, Larean?) until monday. Then, we present the RfC.

We never agreed on a text for a RfM, and you withdrewn from the RfC, Southofwatford (Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings/Archive_7#Withdrawal_From_The_RFC).

Randroide 13:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)



I knew that Randroide could not present a dispute resolution procedure without simulataneously doing something to undermine it - standard behaviour. I will start work on preparing a request for arbitration, the game has gone far enough. Southofwatford 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


The problem at Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings is now solved. No excuse to drop now from the RfC. I warned Raystorm about the RfC. I suggest to wait him until next Monday. Randroide 16:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


No problem has been solved anywhere Randroide, all you have done is create an additional one - I intend to push for arbitration on this article at the earliest possible opportunity. I can deal with people whose words match their actions - in this case I see no viable alternative to early arbitration. Southofwatford 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Copy this, Southofwatford:

At Wikipedia, per WP:V:

  • Unsourced statement = Problem.
  • No unsourced statement = No Problem.

Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings is, now, a "No Problem" article.

Your attemp of mixing that "Aftermath" article with WP:DR is, IMO, a misguided one. But, of course, you are free to try wathever path of DR you want. Randroide 17:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Randroide : The administrator Durova was cheated by your tricks and Southofwatford and me did not want to insist anymore because we know how persistent you can be. You know and we know what happened in Christmas so there is no point in simulating. You also know how many months of "fruitless debate" we have had and you know how pointless is an RFC because you know 1)your own stubborness and 2)the stuborness of world class source in ignorig El Mundo.--Igor21 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Please read WP:NPA, Igor21, and I also suggest you to read your own messages before posting. No offence against me, really, I am "though skinned" after months here in your company. Thank you. Randroide 16:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is there nothing in this article about the policemen in El Mundo's payroll?[edit]

I have looked in the article and have found nothing... --Burgas00 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Find sources, write the text and add it yourself. I know nothing about that policeman, BTW.
I reversed your line about PP "hard liners", Burgass00: The source says nothing about that. Randroide 10:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New Problem To Resolve[edit]

The RFC, and anything else, should be put on hold until we resolve the new problem created by Randriode's actions on Friday. I think we need some sort of informal mediation to clarify these disagreements on Wikipedia policies and specifically on whether it is legitmate for a single user to ignore objections from editors involved in a dispute. Southofwatford 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


This comment from DurovaCharge! on Friday evening: "As someone who's touched base on this dispute periodically over several months, I endorse arbitration. Looks like nothing else will resolve the matter. DurovaCharge!"

Southofwatford 11:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Southofwatford : The name of the admin is Durova. "Charge" is the link to her/his talk page.--Igor21 12:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


You put "in hold" the RfC, I put in hold the "truce" about this page, and if you want to delete sourced information, you face the consequences. Sorry but I am tired of your evasions.

Your choice, SouthofwatfordRandroide 10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


That's more like the Randroide we are used to - threats and bullying as a substitute for negotiation or consensus. There is no "truce" on this page Randroide, there is a dispute. If you choose to ignore that dispute then you are acting very clearly outside of Wikipedia policies. Not getting your own way is not an acceptable pretext for breaching those policies - and threats of what you will do if you do not get your own way have no place here. Southofwatford 13:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


The RFC, and anything else, should be put on hold until we resolve the new problem created by Randriode's actions on Friday.

Yeah, Southofwatford, the RfC and the article frozen until you get the basic fact (explained by me to you weeks ago[128]) that unsourced affirmations must go (this is the "crime" I commited last fryday[129]).

Not in my life.Randroide 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Your latest changes are both POV and strongly contested. Here at least is an appropriate moment to cite WP:OWN - it is not for you to decide whether this page is under dispute or not. Southofwatford 14:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


My latest changes are SOURCED, Southofwatford. If you wish, we can discuss NPOV issues, if you see any NPOV problem in the new section. . Can we go now to the RfC?. Randroide 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


With your current attitude the only place to go is arbitration, those who claim it is time to ignore other parties to a dispute cannot claim to be doing anything to solve that dispute. Southofwatford 15:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


In political parlance there is a word for what Randroide does ("nihil nuovo sub solem"). It is called "filibusterism" and this is the definition in dictionary.com :

a.-the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislative assembly to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored or to force a decision against the will of the majority.

b.-an exceptionally long speech, as one lasting for a day or days, or a series of such speeches to accomplish this purpose.

c.-a member of a legislature who makes such a speech.

I do not know if to say this against netiquette but whatever were saying, doing it should be worst.--Igor21 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


It's a bit more than that Igor21 - anyway, you may be interested in new administrators opinions, it's fairly clear where we are heading with this dispute [[130]]. It's impossible to deal with a user who simply imposes his will on other editors, dispute resolution cannot function in these circumstances. I tried. Southofwatford 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Arbitration Request[edit]

I have submitted a request for arbitration on the dispute affecting this article [[131]]. Southofwatford 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting?[edit]

I started to "copyedit" the current article. I did not realize I was stepping into a hotbed of dispute. (There's dispute, and then there's heated dispute.) But after the lead paragraph and the opening section, there is little I can do. I propose the following:

  1. Split-off the "Responsibility" section and sub-sections. Include the 2007 trial in this.
  2. Summarize and split-off the sections concerning the controversy surrounding the evidence

Is it possible to do this without devling into another dispute?


No, Sir. It´s not possible.

  • How in heaven are you going to split-off "controversies" if those controversies had been published in major media?. Are you going to remove all "controversial" data?.
  • How are you going to split-off "Responsability" if that´s the most important section of the whole article?.

I suggested in January to split-off the stable and (IMO) crufty 2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Reactions.

Randroide 07:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


In my opinion it is not only possible to separate the controversies, it is essential for the long term stability of the article. Removing any other section would solve the problem for a week or two only, and means separating sections which relate key events - just what many people will be looking for in a core account of the bombings. Anyway, this is a key issue in the current arbitration request. Southofwatford 09:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


There´s no "long term stability" for an article about an issue where new knowledge appears.

It´s like seeking for "long term stability" for Computer or Airplane. Randroide 09:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)



Otheus : The problem is that if we give the same credibility to a crooked and biased local Spanish newspaper than to the world class mainstream sources, all the article become controversial. We must wait until the comunity decides if such "source" can pollute the main article or must be confined to a subarticle were his bizarre and knowingly false statements do not hurt wikipedia credibility. If not any serious source gives credibility to El Mundo, this is the path wikipedia must follow. --Igor21 10:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about eliminating the section on controversy, but moving it to a sub article. I'm struck by Randroide's comments: that "Responsibility" is the "most important section of the whole article". From an encyclopedic viewpoint, this could be summarized as such:
The responsibility of the bombings remains in dispute. Three (?) alleged bomb makers were killed in a police raid following the attacks. 29 (?) are currently on trial for their involvement in the attacks. For more details, see 2004 Madrid train bombings/(Responsibility).
Since I am completely new to this article and only have a cursory familiarity with the topic, I volunteer to help in the Mediation process (as soon as I figure out what that means here).
--Otheus 12:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The source that Randroide is using does not believe that the people curently indicted has nothing to do with the bombings. This particular source says that a Spanish group similar to irish IRA did the bombing in colaboration with Spanish police and the socialdemocrat party. They say that the islamist track is a cover-up of the Spanish police. The rest of the editors involved do not accept that authorship is controversial to the level of speaking about the controversy in the main article. We thing that the scarcity of sources supporting conspiracy theories forces these theories to be in a subarticle and to have as only reference to them, a link in the main article. There is an arbitration about that now. --Igor21 13:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


To Otheus:

Hi, Otheus: Take a look at this: Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Controversies about 11M-2004:Sources in english.

If you really want to split-off controversies you have a very hard task ahead: To decide what is "controversial" and what is not. We tried to do that, but we failed (see User:Larean01/Atelier 1).

I kindly suggest you to do not be scared by this pandemonium and to continue your work in the copy edit. The article needs it, indeed.

To Igor21: You failed to provide sources for your outlandish statements, as usual.

Randroide 15:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


The Controversies section can be separated from the main article more easily than any other section - it is disruptive to the coherence of the main article anyway as it was just inserted in a seemingly random position. It plays no part in the natural flow of the narrative, nor does it have any relationship or dependency with other sections. Southofwatford 16:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


*Backing up carefully*. I feel like a guy who walked right in the middle of a cow pasture. *cringe*.

It took me *a half day* just to figure out what the $#@@!* is going on here. And another half-day just to wade through the various WP DR policies. It seems quite counter-productive to edit while the RfA is taking place. The cleanup is needed, but I think the tag needs to be removed, at least until some progress is made.

But I am trying to help. I have filed an amicus brief with one (or more) of the Arbitrators. Hopefully my input will expedite the process.

Meanwhile, I am proposing that the article Denialism be deleted. Why is this relevant? Because this article is a good example of why the word and concept of "Denialism" is so loaded. But that's another article.

Now, since I've already put my foot it in, I will make some observations:

  1. Randroide and Southofwatford: On the balance, you two have behaved rather well, given the circumstances and the intensity of debate. You both have exhibited tremendous restraint. I appreciate how both of you seem quite committed to truth. I urge both of you to appreciate each other in the same way.
  2. Igor21: I appreciate your showing up here at the English site and being a vanguard for truth and integrity. However, truth can be an incredibly difficult to grasp, and just because an opinion is in the minority does not make it wrong. Remember: the theory that Muslim perpetrators conspired to bomb the trains is, technically speaking, a conspiracy theory.
  3. It is incorrect to say that material, which does not cite a footnote, must be removed. My interpretation of the intersection of WP:AGF and WP:V and WP:POV is this: all article statements (that are not suspiciously POV) should be assumed as already having been verified. When there is doubt or dispute, footnotes and the "ref" tags can greatly aid the reader and future editors that the editor did, indeed, use good faith.
  4. I read Randoide's link to Jimbo's comment about this, and I believe Jimbo's statement concerning citations was off-cuff and ambiguous; treating it as doctrine and policy is a big mistake.
  5. Concerning Igor21's remarks about El Mundo:
    1. To suggest that (paraphrasing) "El Mundo is an unreliable source and pushing a POV because its owners have political connections to the PP" is itself a conspiracy theory. Do you not recognize this?
    2. Just because El Mundo has (paraphrasing) "published fabricated evidence", etc, does not mean the whole source is unreliable. Consider that CBS news is still a reliable source, as are Reuters, USA Today, the New York Times. And yet, each of these major news services in the last 4 years has been caught publishing fabricated material. (Do you need references for this? Dan Rather's report on Bush's service to the National Guard; Reuters' using mis-attributed photographs from a "insurgent sympathizer" (for lack of a better term); USA Today and Jack Kelly; NYT and Jayson Blair and others.)
  6. Randroide, your opinion is certainly in the minority here, but I don't think the people here hate you personally. I would suggest that you view the ad hominem "attacks" and attempts to pin on you "guilt by association" as a general inability of both sides to make their points known and understood.

Okay, *stretch* back to article copyediting. Er, copy-editing. Otheus 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Otheus :Regarding the epistemological questions arised by this article, the question is very simple. In the "official" explanation of facts there are two conspiracies.

  • The first done by some muslim extremists who exchange dynamite for hashish with a former mineworker and using it did the bombings. Police has reconstructed the whole process from the point where the group was gathered by a radical imam in a mosque in Madrid. Reading the account you can follow how this minor smuglers got indoctrinated and established contact with islamist networks that provided them with the training. There are some minor loose threads (like one of the guys who has not been located and it is said without forensic confirmation that flew to Irak for being a human bomb) but the case against them is overwhelming. Because is a police case we must speak about "evidence" but we can perfectly speak about "proofs" if we say that DNA of them was found in the costumes the witnesses saw when they put the bombs or when a gas chromatograph analisis said that the dinamyte used is the same they bought from the former mineworker.
  • The second conspiration is the conspiration of the politicians who were in charge when the bombing was planned and executed. Police at the time did a really poor job since they were whatching out the former minerwork and they did not stop him because they thought that was a drug smugling issue so they follow the hashish instead of the dinamyte. Nobody in the police were conscious of islamic terrorism so when they saw that the dinamite was taken by arabs and not by ETA, they thought that would be used for robbing jewell shops and that this can be adressed afterwards. The same politicians, purposely or not (this is subject to opinions) said the day of the bombings and the 3 days after that bombing has been done by ETA. Once was clear that was an islamist attack they split in two groups. One group (the majority) said that had been a reasonable mistake to think in ETA. But another group (in which there are the politians who do not warn about islamist terrorism to the policemen on the ground) keep insisting that ETA (and some times the Morrocco secret service, the French secret service and the Spanish police) were the authors. El Mundo was the one who invented the most sofisticated version using the fact that the police have been very close to the smuglers and that some of the islamists have been watched out at some point. The reason why El Mundo did this is clear but is long to explain. Just to say an anecdote about of the level of mutual hate, members of the current governement circulated years ago a videotape were someone phisically very similar to the owner of the newspaper did sexual with a prostitute.

So yes, there are not one but two conspiracies in the official account but this conspiracies are perfectly explained with all the details that fit each other and 90 000 pages of indictment detailing the modus operandi. On the other side we have the conspiracy proposed by El Mundo. In this conspiracy everything is shady and not a single name has been proposed as the one to blame. It is not clear why someone would kill 191 compatriotes. Insinuations about PSOE trying to reach power, Morocco and France taking revenge, ETA... There is not a single account and the coalition between ETA and the police does not seem to be a reasonable thing. And always a fact has put on the table, the judge has shown is false (so is a falsed hypotesis).

And if we look for sources, we have two groups of sources. One is El Mundo, some minor websites and a radio programme. These sources say that the official version is a lie but they never propose an alternative account of facts that fit with the evidence. In the other side we have all the media of the planet, all the experts in terrorism (Hoffman from RAND was in Madrid this week), the police, the solicitors, the indictment, etc.... So there is not a degrade of sources coming from complete escepticism about official version and going to complete accordance through small steps. We have two complete different narratives and one is extremely minoritary while the other is overwhemingly majoritary.

So from an epistemological point of view we have a completely disimetric situation. One POV 1)supported both by the overwhelming majority of sources and 2)boasting all the coherence and detail that should be expected from something real. Another POV 1)supported by a scarce minority of Spanish local media and 2)lacking concretion in an account and formed only by doubts and insinuations of the kind "..what if...". So even the most rigourous epistemology will assign to the official version an astronomical probability. Moreover, the more strict is the epistemology, the more will point to rule out El Mundo ideas.

In this regard I accept controversial issues to go in a subarticle as long as "controversial" is defined in a restricted way because for Randroide everything is controversial if one single source says so, so the whole article is controversial if you accept El Mundo to be the judge of what is controversial. --Igor21 16:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Igor, I could go point by point and disagree with every thing you've said, but in the end, it doesn't matter. I'm sorry, Igor, but nothing you have said here undermines the core principle of Wikipedia -- according to my understanding of it -- of No POV. The proposed Attribution FAQ would indicate the two major views need to be given equal time, or at least roughly equal -- at least until the court case has been resolved.
--Otheus 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


I know how things work in Wikipedia and this is what I have been asking for from the begining : a separate article written by conspirationists (and as long as they want) with all the non-sense together. If this is the price to have clean truth in the main article, I am willing to pay. Other editors disagree but not me.

If you want news from the field, the trial has been going on for four weeks and the conspiracy theories are melting away. El Mundo now is trying to present his case as if the police has helped islamists once the ETA theory appears completely mad (as always has appeared to everybody who knows something about terrorism). El Mundo owner is a very clever person and will disengage softly letting the people who has followed him hanging to dry in the open.--Igor21 12:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC) BTW, Randroide does not want arbitration so do not ask him to present evidence that an RFC was attempted because he is the one who is saying that has not been attempted. Randroide is too clever for this naïf approach of procedures and rules and he will do what he wants with this article except if at some point an admin experienced in 9/11 or a similar article takes the reins and manages this with the robust approach that is needed to overcome the inherent weakness of NPOV epistemology.

Arbitration rejected[edit]

Arbitration has been rejected. The vote is currently is 2/1/0/3. As per the AbCom's committe concerns, we will start an RFC. Let's simply pick up where we left off with the ArbCom committee. There are the basic issues, and will simply try to get a consensus on them. I am too new here to help anyone decide, but I can help in the process, and of course, I feel that I'm still fairly non-partisan about this. So, shall we? --Otheus 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I will get to the heart of the matter as follows. Feel free to strike/redact what I write (but please, for civility, don't edit what someone else did).

Since I am the only one who loose temper time to time (basically because I think that 191 dead is not the same than the Eastern Island or the Ica Rocks so conspirationist in this issue are for me fundamentally inmoral people), I acknowledge your advice. Regarding Randroide, I know him for one year now and he can destroy thousand articles without loosing his charming smile and his exquisite Versaillesque politness so there is no risk of uncivility on his side (except if we include Filibusterism, tergiveration, demagoguery, cheating administrators, accusing other editors of his own misdoings, cherrypicking wikipedia rules for his own interest, etc.. as uncivility).--Igor21 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment: How much weight shall the community assign to El Mundo[edit]

If the comunity is looking for truth, El Mundo should be named as the creator of a bizarre theory of conspiration and the rest of sources (all the media of the world, acacemic institutions an experts in terrorism, police, inteligence services) be used as sources of the article. Like in 9/11 or like in Oklahoma, creationism, etc...--Igor21 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Unfortunately the way in which this RFC is presented does not really make clear the issues for which we seek comment from other Wikipedia users. I will try and clarify this from my point of view. This section confuses what are really two separate issues. One issue is the weight which should be given in the article to conspiracy theories about the Madrid bombings – El Mundo is a principal promoter of these theories, but not the only one. A second issue is that of the credibility of sources and the criteria that should be used for defining acceptable sources for a topic where thousands of potential sources now exist.

On the first issue the question really revolves around whether the conspiracy theories merit equal “air time” in the article. My view is that they do not; they consist of a series of speculative and untestable assertions that are based on supposed gaps in the judicial investigation of the bombings. They are not based on facts in favour of these assertions, rather they use interpretations of these supposed gaps in the indictment to float accusations that the bombings were carried out by ETA with the assistance or active participation of members of the police. The judicial investigation is based around an open accusation supported by evidence, perfect or not it is open to objective assessment – the conspiracy theories are not, and their influence rests much more on a desire for them to be true than on any hard factual basis. An explanation of events which does not stand on its own merits cannot be given the same weight as one that does.

The second issue concerns the credibility of sources. El Mundo is at the centre of the issue because of their role in propagating the conspiracy theories, but it is an issue that affects evaluation of sources in general. Some of what El Mundo publishes on the Madrid bombings is usable, but there are other things they have published that are so clearly flawed that it is hardly surprising they raise objections as sources for an encyclopaedia article. There are sources where the headline is simply not backed up by the evidence contained in the article, there are others where witness testimony has been edited to give a more favourable interpretation for conspiracy theory material. There is one splendid example of bogus “experts” being presented to back the newspaper’s case. I do not necessarily think these sources cannot be used, but I object to a use of them that ignores the evident and demonstrable flaws they contain. The problem with El Mundo is that we have a newspaper that is doing more than simply reporting on events, it has become instead an active partisan participant in these events, and that must inevitably affect its credibility as a source. Southofwatford 11:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


RFC response[edit]

I'm responding to the RFC on this. Have not been editing the article. Mundo is the second-largest newspaper in Spain and is consequential enough to merit its own article. My two cents: I think the amount of space currently devoted to its theories is sufficient. We are not in a position to say if what it is saying is true, if this newspaper is a WP:RS as it appears to be. Its position needs to be aired, but not given disproportionate weight.--Mantanmoreland 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment: How much weight shall the community assign to the Spanish Judiciary in 2004 Madrid train bombings[edit]

Statement by Randroide[edit]

In the article 2004 Madrid train bombings the Spanish Judiciary should be, of course, a source, but NOT the "Ultimate source", for reasons that I am going to make clear.

To understand what kind of country Spain is and what kind of Juciciary and Political class Spain has, please read this lines about the Spanish Judiciary by former president Felipe González Márquez:

INTERVIEWER How do you see the sentences against general Galindo and Julen Elgorriaga?
FELIPE GONZÁLEZ I see them as unjust, because I am convinced that they were not the perpetrators, neither of the kidnappings, nor of the murders...[]...I believe that there is no proof, and I don't criticize the judges, because I believe that, being human, they have a conviction, but they do not have the right to condemn innocent people because of that." Third party translation
ORIGINAL IN SPANISH, AND SOURCE:
¿Cómo ve las condenas contra el general Galindo y Julen Elgorriaga?
Las veo injustas, porque tengo la convicción de que ellos no fueron los autores, ni de los secuestros, ni de los asesinatos...[]...Creo que no hay pruebas, y no critico a los jueces, porque creo que humanamente tienen una convicción, pero por eso no tienen derecho a condenar a unos inocentes. [132]

Randroide 11:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


The Spanish judiciary is conducting a transparent trial following the 90 000 pages of indictment. Except El Mundo, the rest of sources give 100% trust to his work so the question is the same as above. --Igor21 18:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)In this quote above (the favorite of Randroide) Felipe Gonzalez was lying purposely since he was as guilty as this two gentlemen and he wants to defend them to stop them of confessing and/or accusing him. GAL has naothing to do with all this and we can discuss GAL but perhaps should be better to do in its article. One of the tactics of Randroide (one of the many) is to start colateral conversations to kill time when he is cornered.

Trying to suggest that we have to reject a 3 year judicial investigation involving hundreds of investigators on the basis that Felipe Gonzalez was not happy with a decision in another case that has absolutely nothing to do with the train bombings is simply absurd. It’s like handing over our assessment of the Italian judicial system to Silvio Berlusconi. In the end almost all judicial systems have flaws and there are miscarriages of justice, again that does not provide us with any factual reasons for discarding the judicial investigation into the Madrid bombings, it’s more of an attempt at guilt by association. I do not reject the conspiracy theories about the bombings because I think the Spanish judicial system is wonderful, I have been very critical of it in several cases. Ironically, those who attempt to discredit the investigation into the Madrid bombings are less critical of the same judicial system when it produces a result more satisfactory for their political agenda. I have no doubt that a determined conspiracy theorist could find enough holes in many of the cases convicting ETA members to sustain a conspiracy theory; none of which means that the justice system has acted incorrectly in those cases. In any case we have a trial in progress which is going to test the assertions of that investigation; the conspiracy theories would not survive the same examination. Southofwatford 11:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment: How much weight shall the community assign to the PRISA owned media in 2004 Madrid train bombings[edit]

Statement by Randroide[edit]

PRISA owned SER Radio station told a lie in the crucial (for the March 14 election outcome) March 11th day:

[133]

Randroide 11:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of the people who are not familitar the tricks of the conspirationists, one of the most famous is to speak about the "version of PRISA" when they refer to the version of all the sources in the world except one that is El Mundo. What PRISA says is the same that what says the indictment, the police, world class media sources, the RAND Corporation and a no ending etcetera. Because the day of the bombings a human spine alone was found in the trains, police said to one journalist that there was a suicide bomber in the trains and he aired this in Cadena SER radio the same very day. Once it was discovered that the spine was from an inocent passenger, the rectification was aired inmediately. Two years after we can see here how Randroide tries to discredit the official version by saying that is defended by a media group that "lied" with the suicidal. But we can remove PRISA as a source because we are so plenty of sources saying the truth that one removed is not a problem. However conspirationist cannot rule out El Mundo because is his only source.--Igor21 14:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment: Appropriate point to split article and guidelines for editors[edit]

More than split the article, my idea is doing the same as has been done in 9/11 : explain what happened as is understood by all the media and official sources and then write a sub-article where is explained why there are conspiracy theories and why exist in this case. However another idea would be to give to conspiraticist people space (as much as they want) to develop their ideas and let them put whatever they want without caring very much. This is bad but is even worst to try to create a third version that were a mix of the truth (or what main sources think as truth) and El Mundo ideas. The narrative of the official version and the narrative of the conspirationist theories are uncompatible and must not be mixed or intemingled.--Igor21 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The 9/11 case in Wikipedia has nothing in common with the Madrid bombings case: Doubts about the (current) Spanish Judiciary version had been voiced in major media and by the (sometimes) second (sometimes first) spanish political party (see here), that´s the big difference with 9/11. Just imagine the Democrats, Bill Clinton or the Washington Post voicing doubts about 9/11. That´s the Madrid bombings case. Randroide 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Randroide : This is like the film "The day of the Groundhog". You come again with this ridiculous list of sources and I tell you again that The Guardian saying "El Mundo says" is the same source as El Mundo. The other day you came with some ultra-radical websites that seem to be more on the line of the conspiration. And I want to reitarate that I have nothing against you. If you want to stop with this nonsense and come to the side of truth, we can do a good article about this subject here and then go together to Bermudas Triangle and there enjoy a big time with boats flying to Pleyades trough worm holes opening in the bottom of the sea. And yes, I can't imagine Bill Clinton accusing Bush of 9/11 as Aznar did with Zapatero but this is telling more about Aznar than about Madrid bombings. And regarding judiciary, the Spanish one is carrying a transparent trial with lawyers and sollicitors while in other parts of the world the guys are sent to third countries to be interrogated, which can be as fine as you want, but do not help to know what happened since the answers of the guys are kept secret. So Spanish judiciary has nothing to ashame about. And since this is going to continue for years, now I go home. Happy Groundhog Day.--Igor21 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Igor21. I suggest you to delete your latest post (and this one of mine, please): This is the place for our RfC text, not the venue for our day-of-the-Groundhog-esque disputes. BTW, funny movie...I do not know who in this page is going to awake in the "next day" in this talk page (and with the girl in the bed ; ) )Randroide 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to erase these comments because with a shell of humor are showing that to say that "is not yet time for arbitration" is ludicrous. We have discussed here from all the posible angles for six months. If please comunity can tell us what to do with alternative/conspiracy/unofficial/minoritary or whatever you want to call El Mundo theories, we can finish this article and get up the next day. My RFC text is in my first post above(and probably can be found in 20 other places from here to June 2006 with your answers and my answers to your answers and so on). All these other posts must be considered "comments to my RFC text" or "written verbal notes" as are called in diplomatic language. If the humorous tone does not like to someone, I will say a Spanish saying "Better to laugh than to cry". Have we any timing for going to the RFC? Can we go let's say today? I think Southofwatford is in coma with the perspective of another six months of saying the same things again and again. Perhaps we can agree in a circle mode and just sign our old posts again and again until the wheel has spined enough times so we achieve the next level of Karma like in Nepali Buddhism.--Igor21 10:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone arriving here with the possible idea of commenting on the RFC let me try and clarify the issue. These is a division of opinion between those editors who believe that the conspiracy theories and other controversial issues about the Madrid bombings should be separated from the main article and those who don’t agree with this. My point of view is simple, I am in favour of separation because the only other option is to see the entire article disappear beneath a mountain of arguable points and sources about the conspiracy theories – I do not want to see that happen. I believe it is important to try and achieve a core main article which allows Wikipedia users to have a decent reference on the events that occurred without them having to be sucked directly into a debate about whether the 13th bomb could have been on the trains or not. The only way I see to achieve that is to have a separate article linked from the main article where these issues can be given a thorough treatment without overshadowing everything else that can be written about the attacks. This is the section of the article that is inevitably going to grow the most, given the determination that apparently exists to introduce every aspect of the conspiracy theories somewhere into the article. Southofwatford 11:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Southofwatford's proposal; something similar to how the 9/11 article is set up. The article should be about the generally accepted narrative, with just a short bit about the conspiracy theories, with a link to the main article. Parsecboy 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about El Mundo issue[edit]

I'm not very knowledgeable about this issue, so could someone give a quick rundown of the sides for people like me, who would like to help work towards a consensus? Thanks in advance. Parsecboy 17:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at my summary for the ArbCom committee. ArbCom rejected it because RfC hadn't been formally attempted. [134]. --Otheus 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick rundown of the issue is very hard to do. It's about the credibility of a source and whether much of what El Mundo has written on the train bombings should be accepted as legitimate information for the article. Maybe if you ask us more specific questions we can try to address those? Southofwatford 17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


A faster than light rundow about "my side": [135]

You have more stuff like this (more or less) at Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Controversies about 11M-2004:Sources in english.

I write "my side" with commas because my real side (note absence of commas) is the side of telling the whole history.

Randroide 17:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Hate to be a waffler (see previous comments), but after reading the NRO description of El Mundo's revelations I am leaning a bit more in favor of additional weight being given to it in the article. I'm still not clear what the issues here are. That is, do some editors want to add more/less than is currently in the article?--Mantanmoreland 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi,everybody. The article Randroide posted is very old now and is obsolete in two ways. Firstly, El Mundo position is drifting slowly to denounce inidividuals for incompetency rather that his old Big Conspiracy. Secondly the new evidence gathered since the article was written has disolved all these misteries.

This issue es very simple. The governement of Aznar was obsessed with Basque terrorism of ETA. The police was chasing these organization day and night. Some minor characters of unconnected branches of the police were investigating drug smugling and stumbled with some arab minor smuglers that were looking for exchanging hashish by dynamite. They did not pay attention enough and they do not have neither resources nor interest in the affaire. The small smuglers were a small cell of islamists gathered around a fanatic whose connections with Al-Qaeda periferical oraganistations was known but thought as not relevant by the branche of police in charge of islamic extremism.

When the trains explode, some people in PP thought that this was a good piece of news because they thought that ETA did it so it woild reinforce the star issue of their campain. However when details started arriving it was clear the has been an islamist bombing.

The minister in charge keep saying that has been ETA when it was clear for everybody that was not true. The governement loose the elections and they we seen as liers. Then El Mundo started a series of revelations showing lots of suspicious things.

The suspicious things were neglicences of all sizes in the police. The police was not only negligent before but after the bombings also the investigation was conducted in Spanish mode. The pieces of evidence were studied and once conclusions were reached thrown away as garbage, the vehicles were examined without a written procedure. Interrogation notes were taken by the same police who after runs away to follow the track, etc... In a word police there only devoted to find the authors buts was not thinking in building a case for the judge. It must be said that the authors were found very fast and in this sense the police was very succeful.

However, El Mundo started digging in the indictement and found lots of flawed evidence that he used extesively to spray fog to help their friends. They invented a full story involving french and moroccan secret services, terrorist of ETA (a kind of Spanish IRA), Spanish police, etc... They basically work as the lawyers of OJ Simson, making the most of the defective gathering of evidence by the police and asking very fast to not allow police to answer.

But all this was in the past. All these theories now do not have any credibility since the 90 000 pages of indictment explain all the details. Slowly but constantly, the police and the judge have been building the case until even El Mundo is pulling awayt. In fact, the people with information has never believed in them and you can see that from the very day of the bombings all the experts in terrorism do not have the shadow of a doubt that was done by islamists. Now, the trial has been going on for four weeks and and El Mundo is quietly disengaging.

However, the conspiracy theories never die. Here in EN Wikipedia we have Randroide who has embedded the conspiration theory in the main article. Me and some other editors are trying to separate the mainstream narrative of the old El Mundo "revelations" from the main article for the reasons explained by Southofwatford. The tricky question is why El Mundo did what they did and the answer is that the owner of El Mundo is a kind of Citizen Kane who like to be the center of the picture and who has very good friends amongst the politicians who he saved from indignity with his lies. His obsession reaches a point were he paid a crooked police to smugle dynamite and publish it as a scoop proving the existence of mafias in the police. This kind of character must not be a source of wikipedia. The planet is full of sources whith a tested credibility and the theories of El Mundo have proven to be false (to the point that they are leting them down)--Igor21 18:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show some citation in which the El Mundo material were in fact refuted? That is, from some recognized English language source? I'm not disputing what you say, and you may be 100% correct. However, it needs to be shown to have been proven false before reference to it can be removed entirely from the article. --Mantanmoreland 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Press stuff[edit]

I don't think an article about these bombings should devote so much space to a chronology of rumours and speculations that appeared in the press and the Spanish parliament at the time. I would reduce that material to a small section, with links to a selection of press pieces from back then, and leave it at that.

LDH 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)