Jump to content

Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 13

Randroide section and Randroide answer: No vandalism, Filtered access

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

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

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

Assuming good faith, I will think that you, Southofwatford, did not read this explanation I gave previously [1].

  • To avoid this problem, you could change your words for "non sensitive" words, not truncated by my Internet filtered access, because there is nothing I can do about this issue right now.
  • Another option is to answer to your questions from this section, reserved only for my exclusive use to avoid further automatic truncations of text.

As you wish. I apologize for this nuisance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro Perpetrators proposal

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

  • What the Indictment says about who were the perpetrators: Moroccans, Argelians, spanish police collaborators (v.gr. Suárez Trashorras)[2], policeman (v.gr Kalaji)[3], the 34 over 40 allegued perpetrators being controlled by the spanish security forces or working for them [[4]]...
  • The many claims for the bombings made by different gropus. There were 3 or 4 different vindications made by different islamist groups. Maybe Larean know this issue better than me. It can be researched.
  • The different information available, and the narrative of the ETA-Islamists shift in the inmediate aftermath of the bombings, and the new data that has been uncovered afterwards.
  • The al-Qa'ida autorship has been disproved:
While the bombers may have been inspired by Bin Laden, a two-year investigation into the attacks has found no evidence that al-Qa'ida helped plan, finance or carry out the bombings, or even knew about them in advance.[5]

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

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

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

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

Randroide 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote: Absence of evidence for Al-Qaeda authorship does not disprove anything. It just means you can't assert that they were the authors - not the same thing at all. Let's substitute ETA for Al-Qaeda and see whether you draw the same conclusion
  • Al-Qaeda authorship correction: I Agree. Yes, you are right and I was wrong. I did not pay the required attention to the exact meaning of my words: You can not prove a negative and so on. Thank you for your opportune episthemological correction.
  • ETA authorship: I Disagree. There are more inconclusive clues pointing to ETA than pointing to Al-Qaeda (zero, so far). From the (in)famous Trashorras backstreet "coincidence" to the report linking ETA with the Madrid bombings that former spanish police chief (and current PP European Parliament member), Agustín Díaz de Mera, says that does exist, but carefully stored and locked El Mundo articleInterview with Mr.de Mera.
Southofwatford wrote: As usual, you are seeking to turn the main section of the article into a billboard for the controversies page by inserting links into it at every opportunity.

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

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

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

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

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

I have no way neither.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

Answers to Larean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randroide 10:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  • They caused the biggest terror attack in Europe during peacetime since Pan Am Flight 103
  • They made the PSOE party to win the 2004 general election [6].

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with you 100%.

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

...and so on.

The Indictment is full of mere especulations.

Larean wrote: El Mundo is acting every bit as a tabloid in respect to 11-M. It almost never quotes sources that can be checked by a third party. Their "testimonials" usually come from criminals like Trashorras (who they shamelessly portrait as a choir boy in the most revolting exercise of agenda-pushing journalism in the history of Spanish democracy). Their arguments can all be shown to be wrong. That is why El Mundo is not reliable. Let us engage in that debate, Randroide. You put an El Mundo allegation here and I will show you why it is not reliable, each and every time.
  • El País is acting every bit as a tabloid in respect to 11-M. It´s up to you to prove this grave allegation abouth the second general information spanish newspaper. Wait for the RfC, please.
  • I do trust neither Trashorras´ testimonials. Please note I have not introduced the issue, because I think it is unimportant.
  • You put an El Mundo allegation here and I will show you why it is not reliable. That´s "original research", Larean. You must not "show me" nothing. You must find a sourced "rebuttal" (if you can find one) and add that "rebuttal" to my source.
Larean wrote: That would mean it is now yourself who are making me waste my time. At any rate, if you accept my arguments that would mean that you accept that El Mundo and Pedro J. Ramírez DO have hypotheses and therefore cannot be claimed to research in a vacuum. Therefore you need to retract that claim from yours.

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

Larean wrote: My feeling disturbed did not come from that. It came from your lack of interest in discussing the spirit of the law, rather than letter; it comes from you systematically dodging my questions and issues.
  • The spirit you see in the law is different from the spirit I see. That´s the reason I stick to the letter.
  • Please show me a single question by you dodged by me.

Randroide 11:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Request for Larean: Larean, please, move text to the archive 7, because the page is already 105kb long and browsers (at least mine) about to collapse.

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

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

You can also do this job, Southofwatford.

--Larean01 18:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Answers:

Randroide wrote

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

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

Petitio principii would be a circular argument or perhaps a hidden premise. There is no circularity and no hidden premise in asking you to justify why your sources are reliable concerning this particular matter. Let's say I quote El Mundo as saying that Pluto is 100 million km from the Sun. I am adamant that since a reputable newspaper has published that datum, it must be right and actually Pluto is closer to the Sun than the Earth itself. People try to argue with me that is not the case. I state adamant because my quote complies with Wikipedia policy, and I ask it to be included in the main article about Pluto.

That is what you are doing, Randroide. You do not give us any reason to back up your claim. You state as an a priori (i.e. by definition) that El Mundo is reputable. But that is exactly what I dispute.

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

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

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

  • They caused the biggest terror attack in Europe during peacetime since Pan Am Flight 103
  • They made the PSOE party to win the 2004 general election [7].

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

Sophistry. My use of the term is ironic; I call them that to emphasize that CT proponents do not consider them "powerful" or "influential"... They call them "pelanas" precisely to guide you into thinking they could not have pulled the attack by themselves.

The indictment of course does not make any claim of them being powerful or influential. That is why you need to state that it calls them that implicitly. But of course that is not the case. ANY person can wreak major havoc without being powerful or influential. Witness Tim McVeigh. He was never powerful. He was never influential, except for the brief moment in which he committed a monstrous crime. By your token, any criminal would be powerful and influential

Besides, you dodge many of the other features of a Conspiracy Theory. CT proponents always talk about all-powerful agents who keep secret and have influence to make evidence disappear, to plant evidence, to hush truths, etc. It is ludicruous to think of the "pelanas" in that light.

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

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

I do not reject your source. I question its reliability, which is up to you to prove.

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

You don't seem to understand petitio principii. Again, no circularity and no hidden premises. But you are right: "supporters" of the indicment, meaning JOURNALISTIC supporters, can be accused of being unreliable. As for the indictment itself, its unreliability needs to be proven. A judicial indictment is as a rule a far more serious document than a news article.


  • Please point me to the material evidence of which explosives went off in the trains.

El Chino buying Goma 2 from Trashorras (there is a final sentence concerning this, so it is judicially proven)

El Chino being directly linked to the attacks: appears in a reivindicative video, has abundant jihad literature, commits suicide when surrounded, is pointed to by the Vallecas bag.

Another two bombs containing Goma 2 ECO (including AVE)

Goma 2 ECO found in Leganés and Morata.

That is only a part of the material evidence. We can also discuss phone calls, El Chino's trips to Asturias...

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

...and so on.

The "two hour shooting" is a conspìrationist strawman. The indictment makes no such claim.

The Indictment is full of mere especulations.

Yeah, right. That is probably why the court accepted it instead of throwing it out.

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

No, it's up to you to prove that the extremely serious allegations made by that newspaper are reliable. And stop talking about El Pais. I am not defending El Pais.

You put an El Mundo allegation here and I will show you why it is not reliable. That´s "original research", Larean. You must not "show me" nothing. You must find a sourced "rebuttal" (if you can find one) and add that "rebuttal" to my source.

Wrong. We are not writing an article in this discussion page. We are discussing.

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

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

I am sorry to disagree. You stated that El Mundo makes no hypotheses (or theories, whatever you want to call them). But it that was not my intention, I would love to hear it from you. Do you agree that El Mundo DOES have hypotheses/theories?

P.S. Let's not quarrel about words. Theory is used in this context in its day-to-day, non-scientific use.

Larean wrote: My feeling disturbed did not come from that. It came from your lack of interest in discussing the spirit of the law, rather than letter; it comes from you systematically dodging my questions and issues.
  • The spirit you see in the law is different from the spirit I see. That´s the reason I stick to the letter.
  • Please show me a single question by you dodged by me.

The spirit of the law is the spirit of the law: to ensure that Wikipedia's articles are verifiable in their assertions. Making unverified claims by journalists does not help that.

I do not wish to escalate, but you keep dodging the issue of what is a reliable source.

Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

Intro thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JeffBurdges wrote: If you include conspiracy theories...

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

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

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

JeffBurdges : So far there is not any single evidence.

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

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

Randroide 10:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Irony ON.

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

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

Irony OFF.

You forgot the "script", Igor21.

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

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

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

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

Randroide 10:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Southofwatford 10:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC) El Mundo source [[8]]

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

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

my translation

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


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

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

You are wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wrong, Southofwatford.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Randroide 18:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[9][10][11][12][13]

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

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

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

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

I do not know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PPS What comments have been edited, Southofwatford?

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

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

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

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

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

Editors thoughts are irrelevant. Only sources count.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randroide:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randroide 08:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

JeffBurdges wrote: but I personally prefer if something more is mentioned, like that it was carried out by a Moroccan group, assuming that is true.
  • The guy who, according with the spanish judiciary, provided the allegued explosives of the bombings, was not "Moroccan". Was a spanish police collaborator from Asturias, Emilio Suárez Trashorras [14]. You should also mention that to follow NPOV rules.
  • The guy who, according with the spanish judiciary, liberated IMEIs for the bombs, was not "Moroccan", Was a syrian spanish policeman, named Maussili Kalaji [15]. You should also mention that to follow NPOV rules.
  • 34 over 40 allegued perpetrators were controlled or collaborating with spanish security forces [16]. You should also mention that to follow NPOV rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randroide:

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

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

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

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

Several remarks here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Southofwatford wrote...

Randroide 12:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote: I made a reasonable structured proposal for an RFC that treated all editors equally. That proposal was blocked by Randroide at the last minute when it was almost ready to go.

I never did that. You are misleading the person who reads you.

You dropped from the RfC for your own reasons [17][18].

In case you missed them, my RfC texts can be found here. It´s my personal page, but, for the sake of expediency you, my adversaries, can discuss changes there, if you want.

Propose an alternative wording if you want, but I blocked nothing. It´s up to you to (try) to prove the opposite with my edits. A difficult task, indeed.

Another question:

Do you really think that my rigorously descriptive proposed text "new newspaper articles about those events presenting new points of view" is really an "artificial and non-neutral description of what we are dealing with" as you wrote?[19].

If you really think that, please have the chutzpa to write it, again.

And propose an alternative wording. It is not an arduous job.

Southofwatford wrote: It is simply not true or neutral to say that it is just about newspaper articles or "new" points of view. It is about accusations that have been made that the current Spanish government was involved in the bombings[20]

Where are those accusations, please?.

Southofwatford 13:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC) You blocked my proposal Randroide, before you had even read the wording of it as became evident in our exchange at the end of last week - I had to tell you where it was days after you had rejected my proposed structure. But then in the same exchange it became fairly clear that you also hadn't read the Wiki guidelines that you were busily telling everybody else to read.

After rejecting it, and then later finding my proposal, you have changed one sentence and claim that this is a counter-proposal. What structure are you proposing the RFC section should take?

Don't try and pretend that everything that is in the archive ceases to exist, the conspiracy theories are out there and this artifical separation you are trying to create between El Mundo and it's wilder collaborators does not exist in reality. The table remains a table, even when you call it a chair - wording does not change reality and your repeated attempts to impose a vocabulary favourable to your case do not change any of the underlying realities. The official placards of the AVT/PP demonstration in Madrid on Saturday linked ETA and Zapatero to the 11th March - these were not handmade efforts. It is seriously and completely misleading to try and pretend that this issue is just about some articles from El Mundo.

I made a reasonable proposal with an effort to accommodate all points of view inside a structure that treated all points of view the same. You swept this proposal aside, stating that you were only bound by the guidelines that you were almost about to read. It's not the first time I or other editors have made efforts to accommodate you but your response is always to demand more concessions and none of these efforts ever bear fruit. I will make no further proposals, if you can convince other editors to join your RFC then go ahead with it - I refuse to waste more time on something that I frankly do not believe is likely to justify the effort required.

Southofwatford wrote: "What structure are you proposing the RFC section should take?"

The structure described in WP:RFC, i.e., a brief, neutral statement of the issue followed by user´s allegations.

You can find my proposal for the a brief, neutral statement and my (just finished) allegations here.

Southofwatford wrote: ...if you can convince other editors to join your RFC then go ahead with it - I refuse to waste more time on something that I frankly do not believe is likely to justify the effort required.

You are dropping, man. Please stop telling that I "stopped" the RfC because that´s not true.

I will post here my unanswered (by you) question, again. Maybe you missed it:

Southofwatford wrote: It is simply not true or neutral to say that it is just about newspaper articles or "new" points of view. It is about accusations that have been made that the current Spanish government was involved in the bombings[21]
Where are those accusations, please?. Give us sources or strike what you wrote.


Southofwatford 14:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Don't be so tiresome Randroide, I know this predictable routine - I give you a source like del Pino's blog, you say blogs are not a source and so it goes on for hours. You know very well who is making these accusations, your friends in the peones negros (Black Pawns)! I will strike nothing.

I never accused you of stopping the RFC - agin you invent a straw man. I said you had blocked my reasonable proposal before you had even read all of it, and after waiting until the very last minute without saying anything. Of course, if you have a more reasonable proposal then feel free to put it forward, what you have suggested so far doesn't do it for me. Again, if you can convince other editors to put it forward that is fine, it's about time you did something to promote consensus.

Randroide 16:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote: "Don't be so tiresome Randroide...[]...You know very well who is making these accusations, your friends in the peones negros...[]...it's about time you did something to promote consensus".

Undiluted ad hominem, Southofwatford. This kind of stuff leads us nowhere. Please stop writing this kind of texts.

Southofwatford wrote: I know this predictable routine - I give you a source like del Pino's blog, you say blogs are not a source and so it goes on for hours. You know very well who is making these accusations, your friends in the peones negros (Black Pawns)! I will strike nothing.

Yes, the "predictable routine" of me recalling you Wikipedia rules and guidelines: Interventions in blogs are NOT a source. I suggest you to read (or re-read) Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability.

Your line "You know very well who is making these accusations" is NOT a source. Three options in front of us, Southofwatford:

  • Give us the source.
  • Strike you claim.
  • I will post a sourced list of your unsourced claims in your userpage.

You must choose one of them. I am fed up with your unsourced claims in this page.

Southofwatford wrote: ...if you have a more reasonable proposal then feel free to put it forward, what you have suggested so far doesn't do it for me.

I wrote two new proposals. Please read them. If you (or any other user) do not agree with the new proposed lines, I would appreciate a comment about your reasons or an alternative wording, that would indeed be much better than a flat "doesn't do it for me" rejection. Suggestions about this issue (by any user) in my userpage are welcome. Thank you.

Southofwatford 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Randroide, I am going to very blunt in response to what you have written here. First the alleged ad hominem and the rules according to Randroide. You acknowledged quite openly when I asked you about it several months ago that you had been in contact with the Black Pawns over material for this page - I can produce the quotes if you insist but you will find it all on Archive 2.

Now go to the end of Archive 1 and tell everyone here how excited you and Platonides were when I first raised the issue of the Black Pawns. Not only did neither of you try to stop me from raising the issue but you openly encouraged me to say more - Platonides eagerly sourced the blog of the Black Pawns with your apparent approval. Randroide and the rules. Oh, and I forgot to mention earlier - the user who sourced on this discussion page the web page peonesnegros.es was....wait for it....Randroide!!

Now for the rest - I regard your threat to post on my user page if I don't do what you demand as, and I choose my words with great care here, an infantile provocation. I could easily respond in kind, the discussion pages here give me a rich vein of potential material, but I'm not going to. I am going to make clear to you that if you post rubbish on my user page I wil remove that rubbish - that page is not your personal playground and I will treat any attempt to use it as such as if it were vandalism - it would be a very clear abuse of the purpose of user pages.

I will continue to write here about issues which I believe are relevant to our discussions, it is not your prerogative to restrict that discussion to whatever happens to suit your political convenience at any given moment. I have told you before that I am immune to your bullying, hectoring tactics, telling people what they can write about, what terms they have to use to refer to topics etc. None of this works with me and you would do well to simply accept that fact. My response on your RFC "proposal" I will write below.

Randroide 19:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please, Southofwatford, stop talking about me and my allegued intentions and my "political convenience" (whatever that is), which are irrelevant and, I am afraid, extremely boring.
  • Focus on the issue we are treating now.
  • Read this text to avoid further complications in the future.
Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings.Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Can_I_do_whatever_I_want_to_my_own_user_talk_page.3F


Southofwatford 19:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Of course, a threat is followed by another threat - what sort of complications are you talking about Randroide?

Then we get Randroide and the rules again. What you have threatened me with is not a personal message, it is a nonsensical attempt to list accusations which you will then try to publicise on this page - nothing in that constitutes a personal message however you try to word it. I regard it as an infantile provocation and I will treat it as such, facing whatever complications you choose to threaten me with. Filling up someone's user page with this kind of garbage is not acceptable behaviour Randroide, however you try to twist the rules. Bullying does not work here.

"Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in the project." Justify your threats on that.

Do you ever actually read the documents you cite with such frequency?

"In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. " [[22]]


Randroide 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I beg your pardon, Southofwatford.

I wrote (vide supra) "userpage" where I should have wrote "UserTalkPage".

I am sorry for this colossal misunderstanding. Please accept my apologies.

Mea culpa.

Please reconsider your participation in the RfC.

Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

Chaos as a tool to evade debate

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

Randroide 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Igor21 wrote: I remember when you destroyed pages in Spanish wikipedia alleging that you have a problem in your VDU...[]...this chaos-flooding tactics Randroide uses so liberally

Substantiate your accusations (or at least try it) or strike them, Igor21.

  • Please present edits by me "destroying pages" in the spanish Wikipedia.
  • Please give us examples of my "liberal" use of "chaos-flooding tactics".

If you strike your unfounded accusations, I will forget this incident without further complication.

I am a bit irritated with your unfounded personal attacks, Igor21. Any user can check in your personal page what kind of user you are. I say this to provide the correct context for your unfounded slanderous remarks about me. Users without knowledge about your background could start to think bad things about me after reading your accusations. I do not want that to happen.

Please: Change your ways. Stop posting unfounded accusations and I will stop recalling your past as user. I promise.

You can find my RfC statements here.

BTW, you could also copy-paste text to the archive 7. Please, do it. This disccussion page is about to explode.

Randroide : I have been suffering your tactics in Spanish wikipedia and here for many months. If someone wants to see a chaos flooding tactic in action he can take a look to this page. If someone wants to know more about you, he can go to Spanish wikipedia and look for your contributions in the 11-M page were editors experienced similar terrifying floods. The chaos you have created here is so enormous that now you are telling us to use your own page for discussion because this one is a landscape of destruction. If you would have not done what you did with this page, we could continue discussing here. What do you thing would happen to wikipedia if each editor who do not like how discussions are going do the same thing? Now you want it to be archived so you can start from scratch. You will be doing this again and again until everybody is so tired that you can have your way with the article.
BTW, I have read your "neutral" statement and is not neutral at all. The question is that you want a local Spanish newspaper stating things that not any international media reflects, to be considered as a source in the main article in spite of the fact that what it says are conspirationist theories that must go in the "conspirationist theories" article. This is the discrepancy.--Igor21 16:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

RfC "distilled" section

Randroide 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Igor21 wrote: The chaos you have created here is so enormous that now you are telling us to use your own page for discussion because this one is a landscape of destruction. If you would have not done what you did with this page, we could continue discussing here. What do you thing would happen to wikipedia if each editor who do not like how discussions are going do the same thing? Now you want it to be archived so you can start from scratch.

You call "chaos", "landscape of destruction" and "terrifying flood" to a simple heated discussion. O.K., Igor21, I am not going to argue about that.

Igor21 also wrote: Now you want it to be archived so you can start from scratch.

I wonder how this (allegued) devious plot could ever work: Archives are there, open to inspection. I am not going to argue about that neither.

But, Igor21, you demanded for the disscussion about the RfC to be done in this page, not in a sub-section from my userpage. That´s a reasonable demand you made, so, here it is:

RfC common statement

RfC brief, neutral statement of the issue.

Not consensused so far.

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


Comments by Randroide

  • "Alternative explanations" is misleading: My sources do not point to "alternative explanations", only to allegued shortcomings and impossibilities in the current explanation.
  • "Conspiracy theories" is POV.
  • Text proposed by me: "New newspaper articles about those events presenting new points of view"
    • The text proposed by me is, I think, rigorously descriptive, and, therefore, neutral.
    • Nonetheless, I am open to suggestions about alternative wordings.

Southofwatford does not like my wording, but refuses to provide a counter-alternative [23].

Nonetheless, I propose two alternative wordings for the disputed line:

  • "...the content of new articles about this issue appeared in the newspaper El Mundo (Spain), among others"
  • "...the issue of which sources can be trusted for this article."

I am open for suggestions and counter-proposals, wich indeed would be much more constructive that flat rejections like "what you have suggested so far doesn't do it for me"[24] or "I have read your "neutral" statement and is not neutral at all" [25].

Comments by Southofwatford

Comments by Igor21

Comments by Larean

Randroide´s personal statement

  • Big script for my main claims. You can read only them and still get the point.
  • Medium script for sources and explanations.
  • Small script for details.

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

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

The article (or new section to the current article) proposed by me using those sources.

2. The doubters of the Indictment are a very wide spectrum of people supporting very different possitions. It is misleading to try to mix them..

  • 2.1.The "softer" doubters (among them Pedro J. Ramírez) only point to allegued inconsistencies in the Indictment, avoiding the enunciation of any "alternative theory" about what happened.
Is up to my adversaries to prove the opposite, and such proof does not exist. All their rantings about "conspiracy theories", without a single source provided, are simply a bag full of air.
El Mundo (Spain) investigations are "soft" doubters, and, by mere application of the definition, it is totally incorrect to call them "conspiracy theories", because they do not try to explain the "ultimate cause of an event".
  • 2.2.Only the "harder" doubters ("Peones negros", for instance) expressely voice alternative theories about what happened
(i.e., about if the bombings were perpetrated only by ETA, or by ETA and corrupt police officers, or by other countries secret services, etc)
Only the "harder" doubters could be called "conspiracy theorists", just as the Indictment could also be called a "conspiracy theory", if we apply consistently the definition of Conspiracy theory.

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

This must be proved and explained to give full context for this issue: Without investigations made by "El Mundo" and "La Razón" the article would be POV, false and misleading. All legitimate sources must be used to get the whole picture.

Just some examples:

  • 3.1. Falsehood uttered by a pro-Indictment source: The PRISA owned Cadena SER said on March 11th 2004 that three different sources assured to the SER that a suicidal terrrorist was in the trains. This lie proved later as a falsehood, but helped to change perceptions in those crucial hours (just before the election).
Source and quotation in spanish: "Tres fuentes distintas de la lucha antiterrorista han confirmado a la Cadena SER que en el primer vagón del tren que estalló antes de llegar a Atocha, iba un terrorista suicida"[28].
  • 3.2. Falsification perpetrated in the Indictment: A reference to ETA was deleted from a spanish police report by a spanish police chief [29].
3.2.1. The reference to this report was erased with Tipp-Ex correction fluid [30].
3.2.2. The policeman who made the falsification is accussed by a judge (thanks God there are still decent judges in Spain) [31].
This coverup was uncovered thanks to "El Mundo" investigations.
  • 3.3. Self Contradiction in the Indictment: The Indictment makes (among others) two incompatible affirmations:
  • That there was an allegued two hours shooting in Leganés, where automatic weapons as the Sterling submachine gun (Rate of fire ~550 round/min) were used.
  • Only five empty shells were recovered from the rubble after the explosion of the flat. Where are the missing shells?.
Indepth analysis about this issue [32] (sorry, spanish). And no, this is not "original research". This issue of the empty shells has been asked by the engineer anf journalist w:es:Luis del Pino in his book "Los enigmas del 11-M" (ISBN 8496088456) Pages 161-163. With the links I provided and a couple of hours, any spanish-fluent user can check that the Indictment is self-contradictory.
  • 3.4. We do not know which explosives went of in the trains. May sound incredible, it is incredible, but it is the truth.
The spanish judiciary Indictment is like an Indictment about someone killed by shooting without a ballistics report.
Pedro J. Ramírez (see quotes) asked in july 2006 (audio file) for the official report about the analysis made the day of the bombings, and that report does not appear. Ask about that report to my adversaries. My sources are the only spanish sources that think that the allegued nonexistance of that report is a grave cause of concern.

4. The issue of the allegued "political campaign" is totally irrelevant.

There was, indeed, a (very strong) "political campaign" around the Pentagon Papers, but that campaign detracted no iota of veracity to the revelations from the mentioned papers.

Your reply to Randroide below this title, please

--Larean01 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My answer:

1. Wikipedia does not attempt to characterise sources as reliable. That is up to the good faith of the editors. It is simply false that Wikipedia policies compells use of a source just because its claims are in print or because of readership. As I mention repeatedly, The National Enquirer is NOT a reliable source, but it fulfills all your criteria for a reliable source. You have not offered any counterargument to this. Please let me know if I can start challenging that Elvis is dead based on information provided by the National Enquirer.

1.1. Wide readership does not provide reliability. Again, the National Enquirer and The Sun are clear examples of this.

1.2. I am sorry to say, but your statement here is a clear falsehood. Neither The Guardian nor Times Online endorse conspiracy theories. They simply note their existence. This is tantamount as saying that since the New York Times ran a review on Oliver Stone's JFK, the NYT endorses conspiracy theories concerning his assasination: ludicruous. In particular, you systematically fail to mention that one of the pieces in The Guardian is written (surprise, surprise) by the deputy editor of EL MUNDO, already quoted as source in 1.1. You are trying to give the impression that many foreign sources endorse your position. That is completely false. Of all your foreign sources, only the National Review Online op-ed piece gives some credibility to conspiracy theories, and it also quotes El Mundo.

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

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

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

3 and 3.1 It is very disingenuous to try to dump together all the "pro-indictment" sources and try to blame all of them for the mistakes or manipulations of one of them. That is called "guilt by association" and it is a well-known fallacy. In particular, it is ridiculous to try to cast doubt on a judicial indictment because of the sins of a private radio station. You simply cannot mix the indictment with journalistic claims.

3.2 It has not been proven that there was any falsification. And what we know for certain is that:

a) One of the people denouncing the falsification (Escribano) says that is is the only one he is aware of.

b) All judicial instances who have taken an interest in the alleged falsification have considered it irrelevant to the indictment. That is why the National Criminal Court (Sala Penal de la Audiencia Nacional) did not see any crimes related to terrorism and turned the case to commmon justice; why one of the instructing judges (Garzón) failed to appreciate any terrorism-related crime and also turned the case to common justice; and the Court that will judge the 11-M case (Sección Cuarta of the National Criminal Court) did not include the alleged falsification in the indictment summary.

3.3.There is no self-contradiction in the indictment, at least no RELEVANT self-contradiction. The indictment never talks about 2 hours of shooting. The source for this "heavy shooting" is... ¡El Mundo! And in particular the chronicle by García Abadillo. I have seen no other source talk about heavy shooting, not even El Pais. So please, do not build strawmen to prove your point.

3.4 It is also untrue that the explosive is not known. All the indictment documents and the attorney's claims say clearly that what exploded was Goma 2 ECO, a kind of dynamite. Do not confuse "chemical analysis inconclusive" with "not knowing". There are many ways aside from the chemical analysis to know what exploded.

Randroide 18:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Thank you for the work you took explaining your positions, Larean.

I refuted (or at least that is what I honestly think) your arguments in previous postings. I think that a Wikipedia endorsed third party intervention is the way to go.

Could you please reconsider discussing the issue in a RfC?.

Randroide 19:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Finally you posted a new bad argument, larean. Now I must give you you a proper response.

Larean wrote:The indictment never talks about 2 hours of shooting. The source for this "heavy shooting" is... ¡El Mundo! And in particular the chronicle by García Abadillo. I have seen no other source talk about heavy shooting, not even El Pais.

You are wrong, larean:

Please read these excerpts from "El País":

La policía encontró después entre los escombros tres metralletas -dos inglesas de la marca Sterling...[]...pero no munición porque posiblemente la habían agotado durante el largo tiroteo que mantuvieron con la policía durante el asedio de Leganés.[33].
Eran las tres de la tarde del sábado, 3 de abril, cuando un joven con una gorra bajó las escaleras a tirar la basura. Un aviso sonó justo entonces en el walkie-talkie de un agente. El joven echó a correr gritando en árabe. No dio tiempo a más. Por una ventana del primer piso asomó un brazo con una metralleta. Una ráfaga de balazos ciegos barrió la calle...[]...¡Alto, policía! Disparamos al aire... Nada. De pronto, un brazo salió por la ventana y empezó a disparar mientras en la casa gritaban como locos", aseguran policías que estuvieron en el fregado. Se escondieron como pudieron. Respondieron al fuego con sus armas cortas. Pidieron refuerzos...[]..."Dios mío, dios mío... Hostias, hostias", gritaba un agente mientras respondía al fuego...[]...Francisco Javier Torronteras tomó un arma, cargó una granada de gases y, tras haber reventado la puerta de la vivienda, disparó a su interior. Fue el "ahora" para los terroristas. 21.03. Todo saltó por los aires.[34].

Thank you anyway, larean. You make me work and improve my sources and my knowledge about what different sources said about this shady, shady issue.

Larean wrote: (first sentence wrytten by Randroide) 'Please point me to the material evidence of which explosives went off in the trains...[]...El Chino buying Goma 2 from Trashorras (there is a final sentence concerning this, so it is judicially proven)

Big time Non sequitur, larean: Which explosives alleguedly bought the allegued perpetrator "El Chino" does not prove which explosives went off in the trains.

I will be more specific: I am asking you for the results of the analysis made in the day of the bombings.

Anyway, I hope we all are learning new facts about the bombings working in this page. I am. Good night.

--Larean01 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong about El Pais (thanks for the reference) and I will not dispute that the first note talks about heavy shooting (the second one does not). I am not wrong about the indictment; I have read it complete and there is no eyewitness reference to heavy shooting. Please stop confusing a newspaper with a judicial document. Even if they basically agree in their conclusionss, they are two separate things, I assure you.

And I am not wrong in stating that Casimiro García Abadillo of El Mundo, in his chronicle of that day, was one of the first journalists, if not the first, to talk about heavy shooting. I wonder if García Abadillo was one of the sources of the "official version". That is something you might want to address.

About the explosives: Not an non sequitur at all. I am not talking about a single item. I am telling you that the BULK of the evidence (i.e. all the evidence taken together) points to Goma 2 ECO. But at any rate tell me again because I did not read your answer: what did El Chino wantthe dynamite he bought for(remember, this is a final sentence, it is a proven judiciary fact)? ¿He wanted it for his town's fireworks?

Randroide 08:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Larean wrote:Please stop confusing a newspaper with a judicial document.

I am confusing nothing. You made an erroneous claim about what "El País" said, and I provided you the relevant evidence.

Larean wrote: I am not wrong about the indictment; I have read it complete and there is no eyewitness reference to heavy shooting

Yes, you are wrong, again.

Read the Indictment narrative, Larean, and please count the bullets. I made it in june: Tiroteo de Leganés. Just this gem:

FUNCIONARIO DEL C.N.P. CON CARNÉ 28.400 (8 de junio de 2004) Tenían las persianas bajadas y le dijeron que llevaban hora y pico haciendo disparos hacía fuera indiscriminados...
  • More than an hour ("hora y pico") of "indiscriminate shooting", and employing Sterling SMGs. And that before the shooting with the GEOs.
  • The Indictment also says that only 5 empty shells were found.
Where are the missing shells, larean?.
Larean wrote: what did El Chino want the dynamite he bought for

That´s not the issue here, larean.

Just a simile:

  • Bob died as a result of a bullet in the head.
  • John is accused of the killing.
  • There is NOT a ballistics report, because, for unknown resons, "it is impossible to know" (this expression has been used related to the question of the explosives in the trains) and the guys at the ballistics lab "forgot" to write anything that day.
  • But, hey, John (alleguedly) bought a case of 0.44 bullets.
  • So, according with your "logic", this chain of facts "proves" that the bullet that killed Bob was a 0.44. Case closed, we can go home for dinner.
Hell, case NOT closed. It is time to nail the balistics guys and to know why there is no ballistics report.

I will ask you again the previous question, larean: 

Where are the results of the analysis of explosives made in the day of
the bombings?.
Larean wrote: There is no self-contradiction in the indictment, at least no RELEVANT self-contradiction.

You are now self-contradicting yourself, Larean.

Choose the first sentence or the second, but you can not utter both of them if you cant to be coherent.

--Larean01 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide wrote:

Larean wrote:Please stop confusing a newspaper with a judicial document.

I am confusing nothing. You made an erroneous claim about what "El País" said, and I provided you the relevant evidence.

And I acknowledged the evidence. But your initial claim was that the indictment talks about heavy shooting, not about El Pais. I might have been wrong in bringing up El Pais, but you are wrong trying to go off on a tangent.

Larean wrote: I am not wrong about the indictment; I have read it complete and there is no eyewitness reference to heavy shooting

Yes, you are wrong, again.

Read the Indictment narrative, Larean, and please count the bullets. I made it in june: Tiroteo de Leganés. Just this gem:

FUNCIONARIO DEL C.N.P. CON CARNÉ 28.400 (8 de junio de 2004) Tenían las persianas bajadas y le dijeron que llevaban hora y pico haciendo disparos hacía fuera indiscriminados...

Precisely. Indiscriminate shots are during an hour and a half. Not CONTINUOUS shooting during one hour and a half. Is there anything in this policeman's statement that prevents a terrorist from firing one short round, wait five minutes, fire another short round, wait twenty minutes, fire another short round, wait ten minutes, and so on? That is usually the way these exchanges happen, by the way. You want to keep your enemy at bay and remind him you are vigilant, but not wast ammo stupidly. To think that you can sustain continuous automatic fire during two hours only means that some people have seen many movies.

And just in case you didn't notice, the testimony says "HE WAS TOLD". Guess what: hearsay! Not admissible in trial! He didn't see it. He was not an eyewitness. No eyewitness reports heavy fire. At least one witness reports sporadic fire.

But at any rate this not the indictment's "narrative". It is the testimony of a police agent. Please find me where Judge Del Olmo claims there was heavy shooting during two hours. You will not find it. This is one of the favourite strawmen of CT proponents.

By the way, do you think Agent 28.400 is lying? What are you waiting for? Denounce him!

  • The Indictment also says that only 5 empty shells were found.

Where are the missing shells, larean?.

Oh, my God. You seem to have forgotten that 30 Kg of dynamite exploded in that place, burying a significant part of it under tons of rubble. Where are the missing shells? Probably in the same place as the fuselage of the plane that crashed against the Pentagon. Do you realise the argument is exactly the same? Can I remind you that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence?

Larean wrote: what did El Chino want the dynamite he bought for

That´s not the issue here, larean.

That is not the issue????? A guy that is incriminated by several pieces of evidence buys 200 Kg. of Goma 2 ECO dynamite. One of the bombs the Police claims came from one of the train stations has exactly the same brand of dynamite coming from the same place. Chemical analysis discovers there are dynamite traces (without specifying which brand) in most of the explosion sites.

But El Chino's possesing dynamite is not the issue, it has no relevance. Geez.

Just a simile:

  • Bob died as a result of a bullet in the head.
  • John is accused of the killing.
  • There is NOT a ballistics report, because, for unknown resons, "it is impossible to know" (this expression has been used related to the question of the explosives in the trains) and the guys at the ballistics lab "forgot" to write anything that day.
  • But, hey, John (alleguedly) bought a case of 0.44 bullets

.

  • So, according with your "logic", this chain of facts "proves" that the bullet that killed Bob was a 0.44. Case closed, we can go home for dinner.

Wrong.


  • First, it may well be impossible to know. In your example, there would not be a ballistics report if the bullet is not found. However you have other evidence. For example, an autopsy can show that the bullet wound is consistent with a 0.44 calibre. That along with other evidence can certainly convict a killer. You simple set the standard of proof too high, way higher than the courts. And that is ludicrous.
  • The guys at the ballistics lab forgot nothing. They made a preliminary report which you can find referred to in the D.A. accusation document.
  • My "logic" includes MANY other elements of evidence that you omit. First, the dynamite was obtained illegally. Second, El Chino was in Leganés, where he committed suicide (come on, not even El Mundo challenges that):

En el lugar donde se produjo la explosión, a consecuencia de la cual murieron siete de los presuntos terroristas autores de la matanza de Madrid del 11-M, se encontraron varios cartuchos de Goma 2 ECO similares a los que han sido localizados ahora de nuevo en Leganés.

Los presuntos terroristas activaron la dinamita que tenían adosada a sus cuerpos cuando los Geo iba a entrar a la vienda a detenerles. A consecuencia de la deflagración también murió el agente Torronteras

http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2006/08/19/espana/2013417.html

He committed suicide, I was saying, using the same dynamite. That dynamite is also found in a bomb found several hours after the explosion in a bag that contains also items from one of the explosion sites. El Chino has fundamentalist literature in his PC. DNA and fingerprints from several of the alleged terrorists can be traced to a couple of vehicles found near the train station where it all began. Both those vehicles contain traces of dynamite, one of them detonators. Lamari, who was in prison as an Islamic terrorist also dies in Leganés, close to El Chino. And I am leaving out hundreds of other incriminating facts.

You are right, the Spanish justice has no case...

Hell, case NOT closed. It is time to nail the balistics guys and to know why there is no ballistics report.

Because they didn't find the bullet, for example. You are under the CSI effect: assuming that Forensic Police ALWAYS find everything they are looking for.

I will ask you again the previous question, larean: Where are the results of the analysis of explosives made in the day of the bombings?.

That is an entirely different question, but I will answer it: in the indictment. It clearly states that "traces of dynamite" were found. The report was done by a joint task force of Police and Guardia Civil experts.

:Larean wrote: There is no self-contradiction in the indictment, at least no RELEVANT self-contradiction.

You are now self-contradicting yourself, Larean.

Choose the first sentence or the second, but you can not utter both of them if you cant to be coherent.

Please pick up a dictionary and find out about the figure of speech that contains the words "at least". At any rate, let me clarify it for you. There ARE contradictions, like for example small discrepancies in testimonies. But they are not relevant. Those kinds of contradictions are found in each and every indictment of a given complexity.

Randroide wrote:

Anyway, I hope we all are learning new facts about the bombings working in this page. I am.

I am sorry to say, I am not. I have seen your arguments before. And many times. We call ourselves the Sisyphus gang.

P.S. I have decided to include one of our Desiertos Lejanos FAQs here:

A partir de las declaraciones de los policías personados en el lugar no puede afirmarse tal cosa (intenso tiroteo). El policía que persiguió a Bouchar sin éxito habla de “hasta quizás unas 8 detonaciones”, y de que, después de asomarse M. Oulad Akcha, “se oyeron otras 2 o 3 detonaciones”. (Página 165). En el auto tampoco se recoge que la Policía disparara contra la vivienda.

Otra declaración (GEO 28.400) habla de que le comentaron que se habían hecho disparos indiscriminados, pero nunca afirma que sean abundantes, y de todas formas no fue testigo presencial de los hechos. (Página 198)

El País publicó declaraciones de testigos presenciales. De hecho, se habla de “tiroteo intermitente”:

“M., otra vecina del inmueble, explicó que “poco después de las seis ha empezado un tiroteo entre diez policías de paisano desde el interior de la manzana hacia los pisos de los terroristas”, informa Francisco J. Barroso. Fue un tiroteo intermitente, que se prolongó hasta las 20.00. “Los vecinos nos asomábamos, pero los policías nos decían que bajáramos las persianas y nos retiráramos”, añadió. M. también escuchó los gritos en árabe de los terroristas.” (EL PAíS de 4-4-04)

En los testimonios de los GEOS apostados a la puerta de la vivienda también consta que se produjeron disparos desde el interior de la vivienda, pero después del supuesto tiroteo reportado por los medios. Dichos disparos fueron contra los GEOS apostados en la escalera, mientras que el tiroteo al que se referían los diarios habría sido hacia afuera. (Página 197 y 198).

Also the quotes from García Abadillo:

Pero la búsqueda rinde frutos. Por fin encontramos un artículo, anunciado como la primera entrega de la prepublicación de “11-M, La Venganza” en la que sí se habla de “ráfagas de metralleta”:

un individuo asomó por la ventana del primer piso y, sin mediar palabra, la emprendió a ráfagas de metralleta contra un grupo de policías que se encontraban en las inmediaciones del edificio

Poco después dice:

A De la Morena le impresionó al llegar, mucho más que las ráfagas de los fusiles automáticos, los gritos en árabe que procedían del interior de la vivienda.

Es necesario señalar que este artículo fue publicado en El Mundo por el autor del libro anteriormente citado: Casimiro García Abadillo, director adjunto de dicha publicación.

Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

Your reply to Randroide above this title, please

Southofwatford´s personal statement

Southofwatford 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Statement withdrawn

Igor21´s personal statement

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

Larean´s personal statement

Larean01 19:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Withdrawal From The RFC

Southofwatford 19:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I am not intending to participate further in the elaboration of the RFC as it is currently being proposed by Randroide. Unfortunately, it is not just a question of wording of the initial statement, although on that issue alone I suspect we could be tied up for several weeks. It is simply not worth the effort of further endless discussion of wording when the gulf is wider if anything than it was in the disputes on the proposed main article.

I based my initial proposal on a simple, straightforward structure which left everyone on equal terms and respected Wiki guidelines on brevity and neutrality. Randroide brushed that proposal aside without having raised any prior objections on wording or any other issue - he wanted to be able to use his statement as a reply to the other statements and I objected that such a move undermined my proposal - which is why I withdrew it. I am opposed completely to the confrontational model of RFC which Randroide is now suggesting, implicitly because he has never spelt it out. If we all reword our statements along the lines of his then the RFC will end up occupying pages and will serve no useful purpose as everyone seeks the last word. I do not want an RFC that is converted into this kind of circus and therefore as it is currently proposed I will only participate as an "external" editor commenting on the RFC if it is agreed by the other paticipating editors. I withdraw my statement because it doesn't fit the current proposed structure in any case.

Personally, I believe we should avoid further fruitless discussion and move to the next level of escalation of the disputes - after the silly games I have witnessed this afternoon my appetite for such discussion is further reduced.

--Larean01 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with escalation procedures, but I must agree that it will be impossible to reach consensus. What are the next steps according to you, Southofwatford?

I am in the same situation as Larean and I suscribe his words. Apart from that, as one of the clowns of yesterday circus I want to apologize. I will do my best to not be dragged again to such kind of shows. --Igor21 11:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Next step

Randroide 12:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) O.K., guys. I am afraid that the next step is Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.

For a general overview about how disputes are solved here, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you want to go back to the RfC, please let me know. I am open to go back if you change your mind.

Southofwatford 08:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) A mediation request requires the agreement of all those involved in the dispute, so I will ask the question. Does anyone object to such a request being submitted?

Randroide 08:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC) If the other users reject the RfC option, I think that, yes, we should go to the next step.

This other user in particular that is me, what rejects is YOUR RFC and deeply regrets that you have not colaborated in Southofwatford's fair iniciative. This other user that is me is eager to wait until the hell frozen to see what will think a neutral mediator. And this other user that is me begs Randroide to get rid of this annoying "answer above/below Randroide" that you have planted all around as part of your feeling that wikipedia is your own home and the rest of users must acomodate to your socks on the floor.--Igor21 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

--Larean01 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No objection.

Randroide 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC) I am sorry for the "socks on the floor", Igor21. This nuisance is to avoid any possible automatic truncation to other user´s messages caused by my Internet access (just as people in China can not search for "Tiananmen square").

This truncation seldom happens, but Southofwatford is very sensitive about this issue, so I devised this scheme to placate him, because, yes, he has a right to never have his messages truncated by my Internet access (althought it must be said that this thing happened only once in my 500 plus edits in this page).

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Southofwatford 17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC) of course that sensitivity could have come from the fact that Randroide did nothing to alert other users before the issue was raised by me, and did nothing to correct the problem once it had occurred. Not the first time, or the second.

--Larean01 17:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I have read mediation is slow to start. We can probably do a nice edit of the article when the trial is over...

Southofwatford 19:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Well of course to many people I am sure it would seem almost the most sensible option to wait for the trial and do a major edit based on the outcome of that process. But for those who have already rejected the trial before it has begun, and who want to use this page as a political platform I doubt that will be an attractive option.

For entirely personal reasons, I do not mind if the mediation takes time to get started - I have commitments in the next few weeks which will make it difficult for me to participate if the mediation begins before the middle of January - and I am of course very keen to participate.

Same to me.--Igor21 19:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_Madrid_train_bombings/Archive_8&oldid=1042945939"