Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings

Chronological Archives
1

Citation check

The following line does not seem to be correct:

"An unprecedented rebuke of Prime Minister Aznar by his peers is expected at an upcoming European Union summit."

German interior minister, Otto Schily, called for a summit on March 17, 2004 to deal with Madrid bombings. [1]. That session was held on on March 25-26 [2]. There was some critism at that summit, however it was mainly on how to deal with events like 11-M. The original post seems to describe an event which didn't take place yet and not correct anymore. Dr Debug (Talk) 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Verification progress

Most of the document has been verified and sourced. The exceptions are mainly the translated quotes and I am unable to verify whether they are accurate translations or not, however there is very little reason to doubt those statement and it is more an accuracy check. A couple of hard to find statements - like the immigration amnesty - cannot be found in English translation. Overall the fast majority of the document can now be considered verified and sourced. As said earlier by Randroide it's not about the truth, it's about accuracy and the overall accuracy has been more or less established. Therefore I'd like to move the state of the article from {{totaldispute}} to {{npov}} (which is probably more or less the standard state of this article). Dr Debug (Talk) 12:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford (apparently unable to sign in properly) I am away from home at the moment and have limited Internet access, but I dispute your assessment of the changes made to the article. In the last few days some small but significant changes have been made which have as the only objective introducing interpretations which favour the conspiracy theories surrounding the Madrid bombings. In the next few days I will attempt to explain in more detail my objections. I still maintain that this article has serious deficiencies, and needs substantial review. Putting sources on everything it currently contains does nothing to rectify this situation - accuracy means a balanced article and the recent attempts to give priority to the conspiracy theories of a small section of Spanish society have meant that this article is not in my opinion a balanced account. NPOV in my opinion it definitely is not.

That's the NPOV part. This about the accuracy debate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute )

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

• it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
• it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
• in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
• it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

Every information containing part consisting of 1-3 sentences has now been sourced, except for a couple which do not seem to be available in translation and direct quotes (however those are not important)

So regardless on whether you agree with the information or not, it is now identified from reliable sources with a mentioning of the source as such. So the discussion is about the neutrality of the information and not the accuracy of the information since it is now verified. Therefore the only problem is the neutrality, because there seem to be a lot of people - and not just Spanish people - who disagree with the Judicial Summary of the 11-M Commission. Dr Debug (Talk) 17:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 11:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford, still unable to sign properly. Well, let's start with accuracy. There is no such thing as the "Judicial Summary of the 11-M Commission". Nothing. There was a parliamentary commission of investigation which has closed, and there is a judicial investigation which has now presented the case ready for trial. The 2 things are completely separate, and whether or not you choose to agree with the results of the commission makes no difference, it did not have judicial status and it's important to understand that. What counts now is the trial based on the judical investigation. The conspiracy theorists constantly "pick and mix" between the commission and the judicial summary depending on which suits them most.

Second point - there may well be many people who disagree with the results of the commission - that does not mean that the Wikipedia account of the bombings has to revolve around this issue. The only reason it is happening is because of this determination to introduce the conspiracy theories at every opportunity. My criticisms of this article as it stands are much broader than just the conspiracy theory side, but its annoying to see what was previously a balanced if out-of-date article turned into what we have now. You have a consensus with 2 right wing conspiracy theorists to change the status of this article - but in the process you will override my opinions and others which have been very forcefully expressed on these pages. A more narrow and unrepresentative consensus would be hard to achieve.

The status has to do with accuracy part and not the neutrality. The article used to be balanced towards the official view (or whatever it is called). Indeed the balance has no gone to the Conspiracy Theorists (which are not right winged per se. I'm not and I don't think Randroide is right winged). The whole discussion on the structure of the article still has to take place. The thing which I tried to do with verification is indeed make sure that the "conspiracy arguments" are more or less fixed and it's now about wording, how it fits in with the rest. So it is really up to you to fill in the conclusions from the Judicial Summary and the 11-M Commission (I thought that they were based on the same investigation, so I think that a very short description of the difference between the two is necessary as well).

P.S. Try enabling cookies. That's the most likely reason for not being able to log in. Dr Debug (Talk) 12:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me make my objective clear as well. It's about getting people to doubt the official account a bit and I personally think that it's necessary, because 192 people died that day and after huge political controversies the responsibility is assigned to a couple of little drug dealers who are probably not completely innocent, however they were chosen because they were muslims (but not the extremist kind either), were used for minor tasks which could have been related to 11-M (like moving the explosives from A to B) and because they don't know anything about 11-M either. In short they are the perfect patsies: 1) Partially guilty; 2) Muslims so maybe al-Qaeda; 3) They have no idea who did it. I personally think that the people of Madrid deserve better than that. Dr Debug (Talk) 12:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said of Al Zarqawi: a petty theif and alcoholic from a poor neighbourhood of Amman, not particularly religious...

The Madrid bombings were carried out by an islamic cell, most of which was killed when they blew themselves up in Leganes a few days after the bombing, killing a policeman with them. There are many Islamist cells in Europe and it doesnt take much for them to be effective. The london bombings were carried out by a couple of homegrown pakistani boys. A similar bombing in Paris some years back did not take a huge conspiracy.

It certainly doesnt take a huge conspiracy involving the biggest political party in Spain, the security forces and the judges who are all covertly hiding "THE TRUTH".

Yes the Truth is out there. Leave it in the hands of the official investigation by our judicial system please.

Alternate wacko theories have been conjured by the extreme right and echoed by members of the PP because they could not stand having been kicked out of government by the Spanish people for lying in their faces. They should be separated and reproduced in another article on "11-M conspiracy theories".

--Burgas00 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of who did it, it wasn't these little guys. What do secret services, terrorism and organized crime have in common? None of the three groups perform the logistics themselves. They aren't that stupid, so they make sure that all the little tasks get handled by little guys, who have no idea what it is they are doing. Guys like our drug dealers and thieves. And you are still telling me that there is no cover up and that politicians should be believed. Please, they are the biggest liars of them all and there have been plenty of lies since March 11 onwards. These little guys make no difference whatsoever, because whomever did it, simply gets away with it and they can and probably will do it again. Dr Debug (Talk) 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's say al-Qaeda did it. Who would have done the logistics? The little guys? Very likely, however they wouldn't know details. Let's say ETA did it. They could have used them as well. Let's say the Secret Services did it. They could have used them as well. Let's say a mercenary firm (Private Military Contractor) did it who are both capable and almost untraceable as well (eg. of possible candidates: Control Risk Group and Alpha Firm). They could have used them as well. So four possible suspects for the real terrorism and all four could have used the drug dealers for their logistics to ensure that their hands are clean and none of them would have told the drug dealers what it is they were doing. Dr Debug (Talk) 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets say the martians did it.... Outlandish speculations have no place on wikipedia.

I trust the Spanish judicial system, which is exemplary not the politicians who are prone to lying. They have rubbished all these "theories" which appear in Canal 7, Libertad Digital and similar media outlets.

--Burgas00 14:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You can trust the judicial system, but can you trust the ones who fed the judicial system? The judge has been given the bag that wasn't, only months after was told that they knew why the bomb didn't explode (they had a radiography showing it was deactivated), he was several times lied. He asks for some analysis and they can't be done. He asks for a report and he's given another one (which he previously had). He wants to check a fact well, we alreeady know that this is as we said, there's no need. The judge could impose more yes, but something strange happens. If truth is clear and we all want them why are so many trips?

It's also noticeable that goverment answers to the posed questions about it are almost always argumentum ad hominem.

Let's say martians do it, we would have:

• We wouldn't be given an explanation why martians couldn't do it.
• There are no martians recorded with bags on the trains.
• Martians could speak perfect native Spanish, but they'd still talk in their language (bulgarian, not árabic) between them when buying phones.
• Martians would have nothing to do with islamists, but islamists would have done several space trips to an unknown planet.
• Archive search would find a prove that ETA couldn't be, because these terrorists are used to live in a red place
• There were no bullets on the Leganes gunfire because ionic rays were used.
• Police was told of who bought the mobile by a man with antennas.
• Leganes flat was found when following a three-legged being.
• They would use stolen cars, follow the longest routes, and get stopped by the police, but only 2 points would have been removed to the antenned driver with belgian passport.
• The unusual number of UFOs moving on earth would be meteorites with an horizontal path

Platonides 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 11:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: The idea that these were all just "little guys" is absurd, some of those involved - principally in the group that blew themselves up - have very well demonstrated links to fundamentalist Islamic activism. This doesn't make them guilty, but it does put a different perspective on things. The conspiracy theorists like to call the accused "los moritos" (little moors), a nice little racist description for them. The curious thing, given that they obviously think these people are innocent, is that they have not organised a big campaign calling for their release. If I really believed that 29 people were being falsely accused of something so serious then I would obviously want to be part of such a campaign, instead of just insulting them. The reality is Dr Debug that your new found conspirator friends couldn't care less about these people. You do not want to see the political motivation behind the birth of these conspiracy theories, and I've noticed that parts of the article which point to that are steadily being "rectified". Press on this way if you want but I for one am not willing to see this article transformed into something more suitable for a conspiracy theorists magazine. It's clear that you have no consensus on this version - it doesn't seem to matter to you all, but this has been what I would call an operation designed to skew the orientation of the original article and the way you have done it demonstrates that you have no real interest in the overall account. This is hit and run. At the moment there is no way forward for this article while the intention is simply override the opinions of those who not share your theories.

I never called the 29 suspect innocent and I don't think that they are entirely innocent. I do not doubt the judicial system, only the investigation which has lead to the current suspects. The problem is that the suspects are people who are probably indirectly involved, however the overall structure of terrorism is such that they do not handle explosives and logistics themselves and use little criminals who are simply ordered to move a package from A to B and are paid let's say Euro 1,000. Also for some weird reason drug dealers were designated as the suspects in Oklahoma City, 9/11, Madrid and London; that's three different countries and each time the suspects were people with very little or no military background, very little or no knowledge of chemistry and no prior experience whatsoever and yet on their first attempt they are many times more professional than known terrorist organizations. Or is the real issue that the suspects tend to be involved in drugs and little crimes and appear to be the people used for logistical purposes.

There are a definite political reasons for pushing the conspiracy theories and there are also many political reasons for covering up. Please note that the PSOE issue is not what is being focused on in this article - and I personally think that they are just covering up - however the research and inconsistencies are important. There is a clear invitation - from me, Randroide and Platonides - to add your own work to this document, however this is also a group who think that the inconsistencies and the overall political chaos which has lead to the current state should be mentioned. Dr Debug (Talk) 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: What you call the "clear invitation" to add work consists, of course, of ratifying the decision the conspiracy 3 have taken to slap disputed information on their theories in the middle of the document. But don't worry, I shall indeed be taking up the kind invitation when I have the facilities and time to do so (from 2nd half of August). In the meantime the content of this article remains strongly disputed - hopefully you will stop adding tendentious claims that are not flagged and discussed on this page - neither the clumsy attempt to minimise El Mundo's major gaffe on the Mondragon business card (which in the process so neatly betrayed their intentions), nor the attempt to categorise all the included links according to their position on the conspiracy theories are acceptable changes, and they were not announced. Let me repeat something that should be obvious to all except those focused on a single objective - this article is not about conspiracy theories, that has never been its purpose before and there is no reason why that should change now.

I could go into your other arguments from yesterday but it appears you ignore anything that is not convenient for your argument, so I will just repeat one thing and see whether it gets across this time. NOT ALL OF THOSE ACCUSED OF THE BOMBINGS ARE SMALL TIME CROOKS (apologies for the capitals). Why you think all the London bombers were drug dealers is also a mystery to me. As for "political chaos" - the ranting of a a resentful opposition who feel they have been robbed of their "right" to be in government is sufficiently common not to be regarded as chaos.

The replies are long enough already. I will personally not add anything to the page anymore. Maybe change a typo or two or remove some vandalism. The others like Randroide (who categorized the links) have been quiet as well so we might as well restart in the second half of August. I still haven't seen somebody capable of s yet. The objective of the article is to discuss all aspects of an article and in this case there are plenty of conspiracy stories. This morning there was another 9/11 poll on DU (US left winged site) and the official story scored 11%; 62% said Bush did it and 26% said Bush let it happen. [3] The result is slightly skewed by the audience and was of course moved to the 9/11 forum (because people are not allowed to discuss it without supervision), however somehow I think that Madrid has similar figures on political active sites.

Just the last part: Think of the cookies (I never use IE however I thought it was part of security settings), because anonymous users (=IP only instead of username) tend to be reverted by the moderators if they have the slighest doubt about the edit. It's a lot easier to edit a page with a username. Enjoy your holiday :) Dr Debug (Talk) 19:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 12:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: The latest change by Randroide has not been flagged here or discussed, so I see it´s business as usual on the conspiracy side. You are all very active in telling other people how they should go about editing the article - but your responses to any future changes you don't like will be judged on what you do and not what you say. It is not a "sourced fact" to have a newspaper report that says the attack "may" have been planned before 9-11. Conspiracy theorists have grave difficulties distinguishing between fact and speculation - which is what this source is. Of course I understand the motive for the change - its part of the attempt to remove any suggestion that the decision by Aznar to participate in the Iraq war may have provoked the attacks. "Facts" like this exist in their hundreds of millions on Internet - shall we include them all and thoroughly ruin the article? All unflagged, undiscussed changes to this article are vulnerable. I hope those who refused to protect what was left of this article are going to be happy with the result.

If I don't use cookies it is because I am on a network where they choose not to permit them. As I am not planning to edit the article here it doesn´t matter. I see that as soon as a couple of days passes without visible presence of anyone who doesn´t support the conspiracy theories the process of making contested changes starts again. But then we know the philosophy being used here, Randroide explained it clearly for us on Gimferrers talk page:

"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)

OK, buena idea. Ya me encargo de contactar con ellos. La Wiki se lee, luego pueden suplirnos con un texto "enciclopédico" correcto y ya nos encargamos nosotros luego de que la Policía del pensamiento no lo borre. Te sugiero que pongas 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings en tu lista de "vigilados", para que nos cubramos las espaldas mutuamente. Ya tuve una fenomenal "enganchada" con Burgas00 en la página de discusión. y las guerra de ediociones al final las gana el bando con más miembros. Un saludo. Randroide 19:59, 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?

Ok, good idea. I will take on getting in contact with them. They read Wiki, then they can give us a correct 'encyclopaedic' text and we will make sure later that the thought police do not come along and delete it. I suggest you put 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings on your watchlist so that we cover each others backs. I already had a fantastic battle with Burgas00 on the discussion page, and editing wars in the end are won by the side with most members" My emphasis.

I would be interested to know who "ellos" are in the quote above, the ones who are going to provide an "encyclopaedic" version for insertion into the article? But at least on the editing side the philosophy and objectives are clear. When I said this was hit and run it looks like I was right.

Randroide answer:

You wrote:

It is not a "sourced fact" to have a newspaper report that says the attack "may" have been planned before 9-11

Of course it is. The source is a mayor publication.

I would be interested to know who "ellos" are in the quote above

The "conspiracionists", of course, due to the fact that they have the arguments and the sources that allegedly reveal the weakness of the current spanish government version. Let the reader decide if they are right or wrong.

It is not a mistery: If you want to get a complete picture about the assasination of JFK you also must contact JFK "conspirationists".

But at least on the editing side the philosophy and objectives are clear.

Crystal clear, man: To present all the possible relevant sourced facts.

• If you want to write NPOV text about a report by El Pais saying that the Official Version is airtight, go ahead. I will protect that kind of text.
• If you want to delete sourced facts doubting about the Official Version, you can not do that, and you know it. Not here, in the english Wikipedia.

I wrote:

editing wars in the end are won by the side with most members

I was partially wrong. That´s true in the "Dodge City" spanish Wikipedia.

The english Wikipedia is a much better place: Rules are enforced here, and you do not need a lot of like-minded people to include sourced facts. Randroide 12:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Planning prior to 9/11 dispute

The following statement is in dispute:

On the other hand, the planning for the Madrid attack seemingly began before 9/11: One of the most sobering pieces of information to come out of the investigation of the March 11th bombings is that the planning for the attacks may have begun nearly a year before 9/11Near the end of the text

According to Burgas00: This is not true. The judicial enquiry has proven that the attacks began to be organised after the invasion of Iraq.

Dr Debug (Talk) 15:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes this is well known. The story that it was being planned before hand is another of the many lies and intoxications of those extremist elements of the Spanish right. It has been proven beyond doubt by the Spanish judiciary that the invasion of Iraq was what pushed the terrorists to attack Madrid. But then again, according to some people, the Spanish judiciary is in league with the Socialist-terrorist consortium which wants to hide "THE TRUTH".

Randroide knows that what I am saying is true. I would be surprised if he denied it. So far, he has proven that he is a conspiramaniac but not a liar.

--Burgas00 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC) --Burgas00 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I am not like Burgas00: I do NOT say that I know the ULTIMATE TRUTH about the Madrid bombings, I only know that some people says that Madrid bombings were prepared due to the war in Iraq, and other people says that the bombings started to be prepared in 2000 or 2001.

The New Yorker article I quoted says the latter, and it is a reputable source who points to the facts leading to that conclussion.

And also says:

In June, Italian police released a surveillance tape of one of the alleged planners of the train bombings, an Egyptian housepainter named Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed, who said that the operation “took me two and a half years.” Ahmed had served as an explosives expert in the Egyptian Army. It appears that some kind of attack would have happened even if Spain had not joined the Coalition—or if the invasion of Iraq had never occurred.

This looks to me like a fact. If the Sumario says otherwise (quote, please), that´s another fact, and both (BOTH) facts should be presented. Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability.

two and a half years, that is around december 2001. The invasion of iraq started in march 2003.

Wikipedia is NOT about what happened REALLY, Wikipedia IS about what reputable sources say about what happened.

Burgas00: Please tell us why that piece of information from The New Yorker should not be in the article. It must be a good reason, otherwise you commited blanking, i.e., deletion of sourced facts. If you reach the conclussion that you made blanking, please restore the blanked material to avoid those agressive warnings on your personal page.

And please, I beg you, do not write again about many lies and intoxications of those extremist elements of the Spanish right, we are talking here about sourced facts, not about politics. Randroide 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

It can be written that the judicial enquiry has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the decision to attack Madrid was taken after and as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, some media sources continue to claim that the decision was taken previous to 9-11. And then you add your source. Unless it is written in this way, it is manipulation of the truth and as close to lying as you can get.

You choose to ommit the HUGE body of evidence explained in the investigation which points to this effect. Terrorists plan for possible terror attacks, that is there job. However, there is overwhelming evidence that their decision to attack SPAIN is post Iraq invasion. Im not going to waste my time trudging through the investigation to provide sources, because I trust in your good faith. You take this topic seriously and, although you will try to give priority to your own positions, I think you will not lie on clear issues like this.

I felt you were the independent type. Maybe Im wrong. It is funny how you follow "a pies juntillas" the official conspiracy theory which makes the right wing Aznar government look as innoccent and the Socialists as guilty and evil as possible.

--Burgas00 17:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Your suggestion is constructive. I am glad we can work together towards the objective of improving the article.

proven beyond reasonable doubt is POV, because a lot of people thinks otherwise. I suggest "concluded".

What about this?:

the judicial enquiry concluded that the decision to attack Madrid was taken after and as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, some media sources continue to claim that the decision was taken previous to 9-11.

Aseptic exposition of facts. What do you think?.

You choose to ommit the HUGE body of evidence explained in the investigation which points to this effect

No, you are wrong: I have no knowledge about that HUGE body of evidence. I suggest you to add that evidence.

Im not going to waste my time trudging through the investigation to provide sources, because I trust in your good faith

Thank you, Burgas00, but Wikipedia is NOT built upon the "good faith" of wikipedians, but in sourced facts. I spent a whole day with the Sumario with the issue of the Leganés missing empty shells. And if you add that information, you are not "wasting" your time, you are building a better Wikipedia, instead.

It is funny how you follow "a pies juntillas" the official conspiracy theory

I added a fact published in a well respected New York journal...are you suggesting that The New Yorker too is part of that vast extreme right wing conspiracy?. Maybe I am not the "conspiranoic" here, after all...Randroide 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

No comment. I agree with your asceptic version. --Burgas00 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

But wait, Burgas00, you should not try to find that HUGE body of evidence in the Sumario. Please note that could be regarded as "original research" (please note I did NOT add to the article my "original research" about the Leganés 2 hour "shooting" with only 5 empty shells). Instead, you should look for a newspaper with an article about that HUGE body of evidence.

Plase note that the official Sumario is a reputable source, and should be quoted, but it is NOT (by any means) the ULTIMATE source.Randroide 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Venga ya vale, tío. Con que coincidamos en lo mínimo es suficiente. Pero te has equivocado en mencionar SOLO tu versión en tu anterior edit (por eso he intervenido). Ya esta arreglado. No te pases y mantente NPOV. --Burgas00 20:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Burgas00, you are wrong: I left untouched in the text the (unsourced) official version of the attacks as a result of the Iraq war.

I suggest you to take a look at my modus operandi: I never substract assertions from the article, I always add new sourced assertions.

A quote from Robert A. Heinlein:What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!Randroide 09:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00: You should also ponder the fact that this quote (Dr. Debug found this quote, thank you)...

"There is something that I won't hide from you. The Madrid attack was my project and those who died as martyrs (at Leganes), they are my very dear friends. This project took me a lot of studying and a lot of patience, it took me two and a half years."

...goes against the "black pawns" argumentation about the Leganés "shooting" and "collective suicide" being all smoke and mirrors, a "show" for the media prepared with previously death "suicidal" "islamists".

Why, then, do I favour the inclusion of this material?. Because I have no hidden agenda of favoring this of that version of what happened. I will add to the article all the sourced facts I can find.Randroide 11:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

---

It's good to see that underneath all the insults a compromise was reached. The following text will be reinserted:

The Summary of the Judicial Enquiry concluded that the decision to attack Madrid was taken after and as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, The New Yorker claimed that the decision was taken before 9-11 [4] according to an Italian police report. [5]

That way we avoid the "some media" as well and mention the specific source via a different source (CBC, it was also report by NY Times however that's registration only nowadays) Dr Debug (Talk) 04:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Randroide said: "No, Burgas00, you are wrong: I left untouched in the text the (unsourced) official version of the attacks as a result of the Iraq war.

Now that is a lie. You only gave the phony story floating in some conservative media, ommitting the most credible source: See your own edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings&diff=66334817&oldid=65959326

--Burgas00 23:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is my lie, Burgas00?. I am not a lier. I left the article untouched. I suppose that what you call "the most credible source" is already on the article. If it is not, it´s not my fault. If a wikipedian adds data from source A, you can not blame him for not adding also data from source B. If you think that source B is so important, add that data yourself. Randroide 09:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am saying you purposely chose to ommit the conclusion of the sumario when you were perfectly aware of it.

What you wrote (see your own edit) is equivalent to writing:

It is important to note that Mr X is a murderer.

instead of...

Mr X has been cleared of all charges by a court of law but some sources continue to claim he is a murderer.

That is what I call manipulation of facts. But then, that seems to be what this article is built upon. What is your interest in only showing one side of the story Randroide? --Burgas00 12:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion with Southofwatford and Burgas00

Yes the Truth is out there. Leave it in the hands of the official investigation by our judicial system please.

Why we should do such a thing?. Newspapers like El Mundo (Spain) or "La Razón" publish data and argumentations doubting the official investigation conclusions. Why we should abstain to include what those newspapers have to say?.

Can you imagine someone in Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination saying "we must include only official conclussions reached by the Warren Commission". That would be total nonsense.

Alternate wacko theories have been conjured by the extreme right and echoed by members of the PP

1. The official version is full of wacko assertions, like the Leganés 2 hour shooting with automatic weapons leaving only 5 empty shells or the alleged perpetrators carrying with themselves the highly incriminating paper wrappers (peeled of, allegedly, in Morata de Tajuña) of the explosives to the Leganés flat for no reason at all.

There are dozens of such wacko assertions in the official version of what happened.

2. Nor "El Mundo" nor "La Razón" are "extreme right". "La Razón" is a conservative newspaper, and "El Mundo" is a strange mix of left, center and right columnists, guided by the extremely idiosyncratic Pedro J. Ramírez.

accuracy means a balanced article and the recent attempts to give priority to the conspiracy theories of a small section of Spanish societyy have meant that this article is not in my opinion a balanced account.

"El Mundo" is the second spanish newspaper. Combined, w:es:El Mundo (España) and w:es:La Razón (España) print more newspapers than w:es:El País (España): 600.000 newspapers every day. small section of Spanish society is an UNTRUE assertion.Randroide 11:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What counts now is the trial based on the judical investigation. The conspiracy theorists constantly "pick and mix" between the commission and the judicial summary depending on which suits them most.

If Sánchez del Manzano, chief of the bomb disposal police team, says in the Commision that nitroglycerine was found in the trains, he says that.

If the judicial investigation does not add (or does not want to add) 2+2 and found that nitroglycerine in the trains is imcompatible with the Goma-2 ECO allegedly used by the "islamists", that´s not the fault of the "conspirationists".

The curious thing, given that they obviously think these people are innocent, is that they have not organised a big campaign calling for their release. If I really believed that 29 people were being falsely accused of something so serious then I would obviously want to be part of such a campaign, instead of just insulting them.

"Conspirationists" do not say that they are innocent. They say that they are patsies.

You do not want to see the political motivation behind the birth of these conspiracy theories

I see very well the political motivation, but there is also a different political motivation behind the Official Version.

Press on this way if you want but I for one am not willing to see this article transformed into something more suitable for a conspiracy theorists magazine.

The "conspiracy" theory is supported by the second spanish newspaper. Your will and our will is irrelevant here. Only Wikipedia rules are relevant. And Wikipedia rules say that sourced facts are welcome here.

...the way you have done it demonstrates that you have no real interest in the overall account.

Status: UNTRUE.

Please take a look at the history of the article and look at the additions DrDebug and I made. I even added the video of Rubalcaba with the famous line "we do not deserve a government that tells lies to us". Well, maybe, after all, we deserve such a government.Randroide 12:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: The fact is Randroide, for all your protestations, that your objectives are absolutely clear from your own words on Gimferrers talk page - the intention was to introduce conspiracy theory material and your reference to the editing war being won by the side that has the most members was not made about the Spanish page. Now you are here on the discussion page again, but as soon as you think nobody is looking you introduce disputed changes without flagging them on this page - this has been a consistent practice and demonstrates clear bad faith, no matter how much you talk about the "rules".

The "compromise" on your latest edition is not acceptable to me because the source is not "claiming" that the attacks were planned before 9-11, it's only suggesting they may have been - not at all the same thing. Why do compromises have to be reached at all on changes made in this manner? I still insist that following this method will fill this article with unsubstantiated claims - something you clearly favour. Something is not a "fact" just because a newspaper reports it.

I could, if I wanted, introduce the claim that the Aznar government completely blew a major operation against ETA's leadership because it wanted to time the operation purely for electoral advantage and the Madrid bombings disrupted that plan - a very very serious business if true. I can source this claim, but I don't think it should be introduced precisely because I only have that source. You, clearly, do not apply the same rigour if you think it backs up your case. Its been said already many times - this article is not supposed to be about the conspiracy theories, and your edits have wrecked the structure of the document. Mission accomplished for you, but rebuilding will be needed for those that care about the overall account.

Randroide answer

...you introduce disputed changes without flagging them on this page

I flagged them in the history. I do not need your permission to add sourced facts, neither you need mine to do the same.

--201.54.33.2 20:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: I have never suggested you need my permission, I'm just pointing out that you prefer to make changes without prior discussion or consensus. The software has flagged your changes in the history, not you.

this has been a consistent practice and demonstrates clear bad faith

Please tell me where, in all the Wikipedia rules, adding sourced facts could be regarded as bad faith.

--201.54.33.2 20:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: Please tell me where I said it was against the rules? I'm just pointing out the two faces of Randroide, one on the discussion page that claims to be working to improve the article, the other on the talk pages that is only concerned with introducing disputed conspiracy theory material. You have your agenda, to me its bad faith because we cannot take at face value the claims you make on this discussion page.

The "compromise" on your latest edition is not acceptable to me because the source is not "claiming" that the attacks were planned before 9-11, it's only suggesting they may have been - not at all the same thing.

Yes, you are partially right. The New Yorker suggests, but the italian police text claims. To solve your dispute, I collected these articles, some of the directly "claiming" that the Madrid bombing started to be prepared before the 2003 Iraq war: [6][7][8][9][10][11]

--201.54.33.2 20:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: The statement in the article should accurately reflect the source

Something is not a "fact" just because a newspaper reports it.

AFAIK, it is one of the definitions of "fact" that wikipedia accepts. If you do not agree, Wikipedia is not a good place for you.

I could, if I wanted, introduce the claim that the Aznar government completely blew a major operation against ETA's leadership because it wanted to time the operation purely for electoral advantage and the Madrid bombings disrupted that plan - a very very serious business if true. I can source this claim, but I don't think it should be introduced precisely because I only have that source.

If the source is reliable, you should introduce that claim.

Please tell me if you are talking about this:

Al Presidente le tienen preparado un regalo de fin de curso. Sus colaboradores más próximos saben que para él, la lucha contra ETA ha sido uno de los ejes centrales de su actuación. Por eso, las Fuerzas de Seguridad le van a dar una gran satisfacción que a la vez servirá como una última catapulta electoral para arrasar en los comicios: la captura, de golpe, de toda la cúpula de la banda y de prácticamente todos sus comandos operativos conocidos.

If you are talking about the aforementioned fact, you and me can agree on something: That was a shameless electoral use of the police. Shame of them.

--201.54.33.2 20:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: More than that, delaying an important operation like this for political reasons is not just electoralism, it demonstrates a lack of seriousness. I still do not think that everything printed on a single source about the 11th March should be included. I regard this as an unproven allegation, not a fact - do you ever separate speculation from facts - if so under what circumstances?

You, clearly, do not apply the same rigour if you think it backs up your case. Its been said already many times - this article is not supposed to be about the conspiracy theories, and your edits have wrecked the structure of the document.

O.K., sir: I ask you about your definition of conspiracy theories. AFAIK facts published in important newspapers and magazines (like the sourced facts I added to the article) are NOT regarded as conspiracy theories. Give us your definition of conspiracy theory, please.

--201.54.33.2 19:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: This one works for me: "A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence." Comes from Wiki of course, and fits the situation we are dealing with here very well. The "importance" of your sources is not relevant, El Mundo might sell lots of newspapers but that does not mean for one minute that they are not promoting conspiracy theories - its just a reflection of the origin of these theories in the resentment of sections of the Partido Popular, supported by El Mundo, Losantos and La Razon.

--201.54.33.2 20:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: What a good day for your reputable newspaper El Mundo - they present someone as an expert in explosives to comment on the dynamite issue, and just forget to mention the tiny detail that she is actually a full time member of parliament for the Partido Popular. Now thats what I call quality factual reporting! But then its not the first time they have come up with a helpful PP member recently, and presented them as if they were simply independent experts.

Mission accomplished for you, but rebuilding will be needed for those that care about the overall account.

No, sir. Mission NOT accomplished for me. There is still the matter of the Mondragón whatever-it-was, and there is going to surface a lot of new information in the next months. This article still needs a lot of work.

As long as you do your "rebuilding" according with Wikipedia rules, everything will be O.K. I suggest you to do not try to write a "definitive" text, because, as I said, a lot of new information is going to surface.Randroide 14:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: The claim that everything that appears in a newspaper is a sourced fact is just absurd. The word "fact" in such a context no longer has any useful meaning because every rumour or piece of speculation that gets reported has to be treated as factual information. So if newspaper 1 reports something that is directly contradicted by newspaper 2 then both are reporting "facts" - the mind boggles! My complaint is that you are imposing changes on everyone else involved without any discussion of them and then defending them simply by saying you have a source. Of course we could all do this, but you know as well as I do that the result would be a chaotic mess - more or less what we are getting with this article. It was made clear when protection was turned down that the discussion page was to be used before making changes - you only like to discuss after the event because you know your changes are going to be challenged. Given that your methodology means working by imposition rather than consensus on changes, it is inevitable that it will lead to deteriorationin the quality of the article

Anyway, I want to return to an earlier question - I think it would be in the interests of openness to know exactly who you have used to prepare material for this page. You have told us that you are working with "conspiracionists", I think we are entitled to know exactly who you are representing here given that you are not operating as an individual contributor?

Randroide answer

The word "fact" in such a context no longer has any useful meaning because every rumour or piece of speculation that gets reported has to be treated as factual information.

The information I added is not a "rumour" not a "speculation", but hard-as-nails facts, as the crucial nitroglycerine issue or the tape obtained by the italian police.

• It´s a fact, not a rumour, that the EOD chief said in the spanish parlament comission that Nitroglycerine was found in the trains.

--201.54.33.2 12:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: Nobody is denying that he said it, but its also a fact that he has since said he was mistaken, its a fact that the person who carried out the tests denies ever having found or mentioned nitroglycerine - so why is your 2 year old fact so much more important than than the things we know since then?

• It´s a fact, not a rumour that Nitroglycerine is not part of the explosive Goma-2 ECO.

--201.54.33.2 12:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: I'm not disputing that, but since there is no hard evidence of nitroglycerine being found anywhere - what relevance does it have?

• It´s a fact, not a rumour, that the allegued "islamist" perpetrators have only traceable links to Goma-2 ECO, and NOT to any other explosives.

--201.54.33.2 12:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: Absolutely, and its a fact that the only explosive recovered from the trains was.....Goma-2 ECO.

• It´s a fact, not a rumour, that the italian police claimed to record a tape to the allegued "brain" of the bombings, saying that he needed "2 and a half" years to prepare the massacre.

A fact that they "claimed" - have to be careful with the wording of that one.

So if newspaper 1 reports something that is directly contradicted by newspaper 2 then both are reporting "facts" - the mind boggles!

The different interpretations around the 2004 Madrid bombing are, indeed, mind boggling. That´s not my fault. To put it shortly: Almost everything around the event is disputed in major media. To reduce the mind boggliness of the article you would need to blank sourced information reported in major media, and that´s against Wikipedia policies.

My complaint is that you are imposing changes on everyone else involved without any discussion of them and then defending them simply by saying you have a source.

Permission is not needed to improve an article.Please read this:

Offering a suggestion or criticism on the Talk page can be helpful, but it is often faster to just give the article what you think it needs. Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. I suggest also you to read carefully the section about deleting.

--201.54.33.2 12:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: So are you seriously claiming that this is the recommended way to add what you know to be controversial and disputed information? Obviously, if I adopt your policy of editing we will between the two of us take this article to pieces - not in my view at least a satisfactory result. You seem to be relying on others to adopt more restraint than you do, so far we have but in the end I might reach a point where I see no visible alternative to joining you in wrecking the original article. Whether you need permission is not the issue, its evident that you prefer to impose your preferences, rather than discuss them. Try and distinguish between being allowed to do something and being obliged to do it.

It was made clear when protection was turned down that the discussion page was to be used before making changes

You are wrong, sir. This is what the administrator said:

For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk.

...and that´s just what I am doing.

--201.54.33.2 12:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: That is NOT what you are doing - you make absolutely no effort to explain or justify your changes UNLESS someone challenges them

I think it would be in the interests of openness to know exactly who you have used to prepare material for this page. You have told us that you are working with "conspiracionists", I think we are entitled to know exactly who you are representing here given that you are not operating as an individual contributor?

I could choose to do NOT answer to this question, due to the fact that Wikipedia policies say Argue facts, not personalities..

But as an act of good will, I will answer your questions:

• I am representing only to myself.
• I am here operating as an individual contributor. Your "given" is a first class petitio principii.
• I used only my own resources to prepare material for this page.
• Some of my friends are "peones negros", they supplied me the "scoop" about the "nitroglycerin" issue before "El Mundo" published that information, now they say to me that new information is in the "launching pad", that´s the reason of my piece of advice of not trying to write the ultimate article about the issue, not by now.

--201.54.33.2 12:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: I am not arguing personalities, I am simply trying to get to the bottom of what is going on with this operation. You admitted before that you contacted other unnamed "conspiracionists" to prepare material for you. Why can it not be legitimate for me to ask who they are - this is nothing to do with personalities, I just want to know who exactly is behind the current campaign to change this article.

Definition of "conspiracy theory" (bolds added by me):

A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence...[]...The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors.

--201.54.33.2 12:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: This is the definition which I included in my response to you yesterday, and which you appear not to have read yet - I answered your question.

Something published in major media could NOT be regarded as secret nor as rumors, so, please, be faithful to the meaning of words and stop talking about "conspiracy theories".

• Please stop calling the news you disagree with "conspiracy theories". They are not. By definition, Conspiracy theories do not get published in major media.
• If you want to counterbalance those news you disagree with with other sourced news calling the disputed news as "erroneous" or "misinformation", you have all my blessings.

--201.54.33.2 12:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: I don't think you understand the definition you are using. The reference to secrecy is to those who are alleged to have carried out the plot, not to those who report the conspiracy theories. As I said yestaerday, there is nothing in this definition that means a big selling newspaper cannot be a propagator of conspiracy theories. Judging a newspaper by the amount of copies it sells is not very sensible anyway - I am not going to start using the Sun from the UK as a reference here - it sells MANY more copies than El Mundo.

The theories being promoted by El Mundo in alliance with the COPE and Luis del Pino fit very well with the definition of conspiracy theories - indeed not all of the promotors would even deny it given that they claim it is a joint operation by the current government, ETA and the secret services of other countries. Who could read this and say it is anything other than a conspiracy theory? El Mundo is ruining its credibility in printing a lot of this stuff (as in the example below), its director is allied with Losantos in his anti-government crusade - and the newspaper cannot be presented as an independent source for the simple reason that it is one of the main promotors of these theories

Southofwatford: What a good day for your reputable newspaper El Mundo - they present someone as an expert in explosives to comment on the dynamite issue, and just forget to mention the tiny detail that she is actually a full time member of parliament for the Partido Popular. Now thats what I call quality factual reporting!

Quote or link, please. I do not know what are you talking about. Randroide 11:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 12:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: Don't you read your Sunday papers?

http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2006/07/30/

It appears she has been a full time PP politician for the last 20 years, and that before this she worked for Hertz, the car hire company. Who else would we expect to get as an "expert" on explosives analysis? One of the other great "experts" who they present as an "independent consultant" works with Losantos on his radio show on the COPE.

About what is really a "conspiracy theory"

Southofwatford wrote:

I don't think you understand the definition you are using. The reference to secrecy is to those who are alleged to have carried out the plot, not to those who report the conspiracy theories. As I said yestaerday, there is nothing in this definition that means a big selling newspaper cannot be a propagator of conspiracy theories.

Fine. I am gonna play your game for a while. Suppose we accept your interpretation of the definition of "conspiracy theory". In that case, the official version supported by the current spanish government is ALSO a "conspiracy theory", due to the fact that...

• The Official Version tell us that a small cabal of "islamists" used secrecy to carry out their plot.
• The fact that is the version supported by the spanish government and (so far) by the spanish judiciary is irrelevant, due to the fact that "there is nothing in this definition that means that the spanish government and the spanish judiciary cannot be a propagator of conspiracy theories". Yeah, it´s a cheap shot, but it´s the kind of shot you used.

So, even if we use your interpretation of "conspiracy theory", we would have here two "conspiracy theories":

• On the one hand the "Official conspiracy theory" (ouch!), supported by the current spanish government, "El Pais" and the SER radio station and the spanish judiciary (so far, judgment has not yet begun: We´ll see what happens once lawyers start to torn to pieces that version).
• On the other hand the "Unofficial conspiracy theory", supported by part of the second spanish party, the PP, "El Mundo" and the "COPE" radio station.

Southofwatford also wrote:

The theories being promoted by El Mundo in alliance with the COPE and Luis del Pino fit very well with the definition of conspiracy theories...[]...Who could read this and say it is anything other than a conspiracy theory?

You used an Argumentum ad populum, i.e., a Logical fallacy. Try something better, please.

El Mundo is ruining its credibility in printing a lot of this stuff (as in the example below)

I am going to remind you something about on what foundations is built the credibility of El Mundo (Spain)

• El Mundo uncovered the PSOE government implication in the GAL death squads.
• El Mundo located in 1995 the skeletons of Lasa y Zabala, two youngsters kidnapped, tortured and killed by the GAL in 1984.
• El Mundo uncovered that Felipe González gave permission to the american B-52 to bomb Iraq from air bases located in Spain in the 1991 Gulf War.
• El Mundo uncovered that Felipe González had a plan to send spanish soldiers to the Kurdistán in 1991 (the infamous "Papa Tango" plan). This exposé probably botched that plan.
• El Mundo uncovered Malesa, Filesa and Time Export corruption nets.

And now, please, write here a list of gaffes made by "El Mundo".

the newspaper cannot be presented as an independent source for the simple reason that it is one of the main promotors of these theories

I do not want to be offensive, sir, but this is a circular argument:

• If the (Unofficial) "conspiracy theories" are NOT published in a newspaper, that´s "original research" and "rumour", and ,thus, should not be used.
• If the (Unofficial) "conspiracy theories" are published in a newspaper, you say that the newspaper cannot be presented as an independent source for the simple reason that it is one of the main promotors of these theories.

On the other hand, the Official conspiracy theory is Kosher for you, for reasons you are not telling us. It´s my turn to ask questions now: Which are those reasons, please?.

...it´s crystal clear now that you are against the publication of "these theories" (Unofficial conspiracy theories) per se, without consideration on which kind of sources support them or what factual status they have. That´s your "campaign" and your "operation". Oh, yes, I can also use these words. They are totally out of place in this dicussion, but you insist in use them against me. I invite you to stop that name calling.

Why do you want to supress "these theories" (Unofficial conspiracy theories)?. They are factually hard-as-nails, published in major media and sourced. And, please, avoid the cheap shot of saying "because they are "conspiracy theories""...using your definition the Official Version is also a conspiracy theory, so we should have to blank the article and say only "10 bombs exploded, 191 dead...everything else is "conspiracy theory". Randroide 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

---

--201.54.33.2 11:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford: I will come back more on this later when I have more time, but it is clear you have still not understood the meaning of the definition of conspiracy theory. The islamic cell that are accusd of carrying out the bombings did them in an "overt" way in the sense that they made no attempt to pretend to be anything else than what they were - that I think is clear. A certain level of secrecy is inevitable because being arrested before the event is usually not helpful to the success of the operation. Using secrecy as the key element makes virtually all criminal operations conspiracy theories, I don't think we need to follow the logic of that one. If, on the other hand, you try to explain the bombings as the result of a group of people who deliberately disguise their intentions by acting as if they were someone else, then that fits with the definition. That is why the account in the judicial summary is not a conspiracy theory, whilst Pedro Jota, Luis Del Pino and Losantos ARE spreading conspiracy theories and doing it together. Also, conspiracy theorists always need an "official version", that is not something which exists and I thought we had already established it.

El Mundo - as you know I said that the paper is destroying its credibility, I didn't say it never had any before. What it did in the past does not justify or even strengthen in any way what it does now - you have to judge each action on its own merits. Presenting someone who is a professional PP politician for 20 years and who may never have done an explosives analysis in her entire life as an "expert" in such matters could be called a gaffe, although I prefer deliberate deception. No open minded newspaper would do such a thing, they would get genuine experts to comment - but the last thing El Mundo wants is someone who knows their stuff telling them they are printing rubbish, so they mislead their own readers on the origin of their information. More later.

One last thing - read the header of this page on making changes before telling anyone else what the rules are - something you seem to specialise in.

---

Randroide answer:

Southofwatford wrote:

read the header of this page on making changes before telling anyone else what the rules are

Oh. Yes, sir. In this case you are completely right and I was completely wrong: Changes should be discussed before any change is made in the article. Mea culpa. I beg your pardon for mi previous unfounded argumentation about this issue.

it is clear you have still not understood the meaning of the definition of conspiracy theory. The islamic cell that are accusd of carrying out the bombings did them in an "overt" way in the sense that they made no attempt to pretend to be anything else than what they were...[].. If, on the other hand, you try to explain the bombings as the result of a group of people who deliberately disguise their intentions by acting as if they were someone else, then that fits with the definition.

Wrong move, sir. The Official Conspiracy theory (the current spanish government theory about what happened) also includes two kinds of people who deliberately disguise their intentions by acting as if they were someone else (those are your own words):

• The allegued "islamists", acting as "normal" inmigrants, not as rabid extremists.
• The Police and Guardia Civil informers who alleguedly provided the explosives, the cell phone cards and the two Sterling Sub Machine Guns to the aforementioned "islamists", acting as "good informers" and, allegedly, hiding their real actions to their Police and Guardia Civil controllers.

I should also mention to you that, after pondering carefully the issue, I concluded that there is no logical argument to assert that the information presented in "El Mundo" is a "conspiracy theory" and the Official Version is not. I suggest you to drop the subject. Every move you do on this issue will finish in checkmate against you: Whatever way you choose to warp the definition of "conspiracy theory" both are "conspiracy theories" or none of them are. If you want a detailed demonstration of the dead-end nature of every possible counterargumentation I will be obliged to give that detailed demonstration to you, but that will take a lot of our time, and we have better things to do to improve the article.

El Mundo - as you know I said that the paper is destroying its credibility,

O.K. You concede that "El Mundo" has credibility. That´s enough for our english audience.

• "El Mundo" Is NOT like "The Sun" ot the "The National Inquirer" (in fact, tabloids are non-existent in Spain).
• "El Mundo" is more like the ideologically mixed "The Washington Post".

Reductio ad absurdum (and irony) ON

"The Washington Post", you know, that newspaper that (according to your arguments) "destroyed its credibility" publishing "conspiration theories" known as "Pentagon papers" or "Watergate". Highly "conspiratorial" stuff, indeed. I suggest you to visit those pages to ask for their deletion, due to the fact that their content is far more "conspiratorial" that the rather timid affirmations made by "El Mundo" about the logical impossibilities of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" (i.e., the Official Version about what happened maintained by the current spanish government).

You should also ask to the article Vietnam War to be rewritten according entirely along the lines of the Official Version provided by the Truman, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ administrations. All the conspiracy theories on that article (based on the Pentagon Papers) should be removed.

Yes, we must fight to maintain Wikipedia free of "Unofficial Conspiracy Theories". Only "Official Conspiracy Theories" (i.e., supported by a government) should be included.

Reductio ad absurdum (and irony) OFF

Presenting someone who is a professional PP politician for 20 years and who may never have done an explosives analysis in her entire life as an "expert" in such matters could be called a gaffe, although I prefer deliberate deception.

The article you linked is pay per view. I can not talk about that article until I read it in the public library. Please be patient.

BTW, a professional PP politician for 20 years is a logical impossibility, due to the fact that the PP was founded in 1989. Randroide 09:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote: So if newspaper 1 reports something that is directly contradicted by newspaper 2 then both are reporting "facts" - the mind boggles!

Of course, sir. It´s natural, because the Madrid 2004 bombings issue is a mind boggling issue, and no consensus has been reached so far.

Some examples of articles (or sections of article) with mind boggling nature:

• Reichstag fire
• Gulf of Tonkin Incident
• Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate
• Kennedy assassination theories
• USS Maine (ACR-1)#Causes of the sinking and #The investigations
• RMS_Lusitania#Controversies
• Hindenburg_(airship)#Controversies

These are disputed issues, just like the Madrid 2004 bombing, so mind bogglingness is an unavoidable effect of presenting the whole picture.Randroide 11:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

El Mundo's "Experts" in Explosives Analysis

--201.54.33.2 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Section introduced by Southofwatford.

"Presenting someone who is a professional PP politician for 20 years and who may never have done an explosives analysis in her entire life as an "expert" in such matters could be called a gaffe, although I prefer deliberate deception. "

The article you linked is pay per view. I can not talk about that article until I read it in the public library. Please be patient.

Before going to the library you can read this: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/07/30/espana/1154225455.html

I gave you the link to the full article.

BTW, a professional PP politician for 20 years is a logical impossibility, due to the fact that the PP was founded in 1989

Well unfortunately the information from the Spanish parliament page does not tell us whether she was a member of the PP's predecessor (Alianza Popular?)

http://www.congreso.es/diputados/wfichadipu.jsp?cod=215&num_leg=8

It doesn't affect the point I was making - this is a person who has been a professional politician for almost 20 years. She is now most definitely a member of the PP.

One of the other "experts" in explosives analysis presented to us by El Mundo is Enrique de la Morena, portrayed as an independent consultant, but who appears to be a collaborator of Losantos on his COPE radio La Mañana - not presenting a section on developments in analysis of explosives - it seems that his tasks form part of the "Whats wrong with me Doctor?" section of the show. I've never listened to it so I can't comment on the possibility that he fields regular questions on recovering traces of dynamite from bomb explosions.

O.K. You concede that "El Mundo" has credibility. That´s enough for our english audience.

No, I don't concede that, I concede that it HAD credibility which it is now rapidly losing, it's not just a small difference. The example here is an instance of how that credibility is being lost, I do intend to return in more detail to the subject of El Mundo in the next couple of days.

Ehrr...excuse me, sir. This is a pure logic issue: If "El Mundo" is now rapidly losing credibility it is because it has credibility. One can not lose something one does not have.

---

Losing credibility? According to? ... the numbers of readers, perhaps? Since the 11-M, the popularity of "El Mundo" is increasing whereas "El País" (defending the socialist version) is just in the opposite direction.

"El Mundo" only said that the method (the cromatography) for detection of explosives is extremely sensitive (and this is obviuosly true). Also that this method detect the components of the explosives, not the name of this explosives (and this is also true). All the people with some background in science know that, because is a method used for detencion a lot of substances (not olny explosives). Then, the excuses of the police were very, very poor. Concernings about the credibility of this information is simply ignorance or hypocrisy.

---

–88.0.31.163 05:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Credibility = sales? Interesting theory - most of the best selling newspapers in the world are probably the most sensationalist, not the most credible which tend to have rather more boring sales figures. Although you have put your finger on something here, I do believe that commercial motives are important in El Mundo's decision to promote the conspiracy theories.

The key point here is why they had to present as notable experts on the issue people who are clearly not? They concealed details about their "experts" from their readers. Why is a newspaper of El Mundo's fame unable to find genuine experts to back up what they say? In a credible newspaper, people get fired for misleading journalism, in Ell Mundo I suspect they get promoted. A world of difference.

The Explosives Recovered From The Trains

--201.54.33.2 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Section introduced by Southofwatford.

Southofwatford wrote:

Absolutely, and its a fact that the only explosive recovered from the trains was.....Goma-2 ECO.

---

Randroide wrote:

That´s a major affirmation, Southofwatford.

You are talking about a crucial issue, so, I solemnly ask you for a source for that affirmation: the only explosive recovered from the trains was.....Goma-2 ECO.Randroide 11:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford wrote:

The only unexploded bomb recovered from the trains contained Goma-2 ECO. If you need a source for that I will provide one, but I suspect that you already know about it. If you believe that any other explosive was recovered from the trains then please tell me what it was - feel free to consult El Mundo's "experts" on the subject.

Randroide answers (two different sections):

The disputed nature of the "Vallecas bag"

(Due to the limited nature of my english, I link this text I found in the net to give a better written background to the discussion).

You, Southofwatford, are talking about the "Vallecas bag", the unexploded bomb that was found in the Vallecas Police Station in the night of march 12th.

In this link you will found this text:

El funcionario de Policía insistió ante el juez en la imposibilidad de mantener que la bolsa que contenía la Goma 2 Eco, con la metralla, el detonador y el teléfono móvil, formara parte de los objetos recogidos en El Pozo

The policeman insisted to the judge the impossibility of the [Vallecas] bag with Goma-2 ECO, shrapnel, detonator and cell phone to be among the objects collected in El Pozo

There is not Chain of custody for that bag, that was alleguedly overlooked by a double search made in situ in the trains by the EOD policemen in the morning of march 11th. I suggest you to read these files with the serious argumentations made against the "Vallecas bag" as an authentic proof.

Here you can see with at a glance that a huge analytic work has been made by these folks. For instance, look at the pictures showing the handles of the bag: Those handles are new, the bag has never been used. I remind you that the explosive device weighed 30 pounds.

This source says that the nails added for shrapnel to the "Vallecas bag" do not match with the shrapnel found in the trains.

I also suggest you a direct experiment: Create, with stones or with iron weights, your own "Vallecas bag" with a weight of 30 pounds (the weight of the device), now carry that thing for a while. Hey!, that´s not a "normal" bag!. And they tell us that the EOD policemen missed that in the morning of march 11th. I do not believe that.

By the way, the "Vallecas bag" made the PP loose the elections on march 14th and gave victory to the PSOE. Withouth this bag we would not have "islamists" arrested by the police before the election. I do not grieve the PP defeat (I do not like them), I grieve the PSOE victory (I do not like them neither) and for the victims.

Evidence of other explosives other than Goma-2 ECO

But lets suppose that the Vallecas bag is not a fabricated evidence

Well, even in that case also we have evidence of other explosives:

• Sánchez Manzano famous talk about "Nitroglycerine", while Goma-2 ECO has not Nitroglycerine, but Nitroglycol. Titadine 30 has nitroglycerine. ETA has Tytadine 30. Conclusive?. No, not conclusive, but it is a clue.

Yeah, he said that he commited an error. See please this section.

• March 11th, 9:30 in the morning. Policeman Jacobo Barrero founds an unexploded bomb in the trains, later exploded in situ. Jacobo says that the explosive was orange. Titadine 30 is orange. Goma-2 ECO is white.

• Spanish congress hearing: Gómez Pintado, subdirector general operativo of the spanish police says that on the morning of march 11th, Cuadro Jaén told him that the TEDAX said that the explosive used was Titadine.

"El comisario general de Seguridad Ciudadana me dijo que era Titadyne con cordón detonante"

• The Metenamine issue: Metenamine was found in the Renault Kangoo. Metenamine is used for the fabrication of RDX, an entirely different family of military explosives.

• ...and, finally, we have absence of evidence, that, in this case, it is also evidence: The analytical work made in the place of the explosions the same morning of march 11th has NOT been released. Those are the documents "El Mundo" is asking for. Randroide 15:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Once Again On Conspiracy Theories

--201.54.33.2 13:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Section introduced by Southofwatford.

Randroide, I insist that you have still not understood the definition of conspiracy theory that we are discussing here, and I think the only way forward is to use a concrete example.

Lets take ETA's terrorist attacks in Spain. These attacks were prepared in conditions of absolute secrecy, ETA's commandos would frequently act as if they were just living 'normal' everyday lives in Madrid, Bilbao or wherever. To avoid detection, they never told their neighbours that they were members of an ETA commando. When they carried out an attack they would then usually release some sort of statement claiming responsibility for the attack - openly in the name of ETA. It is most definitely not a conspiracy theory in these circumstances to write in a newspaper that ETA is responsible for the attack. The judicial authorities are not preparing a conspiracy theory when they bring charges related to the attack.

Now, if I say that ETA's attacks were not really carried out by ETA, or that ETA is just a front organization for, lets say, the Spanish secret services - that for me IS a conspiracy theory. Because in this case the people who I am suggesting have carried out the attack have done so with the intention of making it look like someone else has committed it. None of this is to say that the conspiracy theory has to be false - because it is of course conceivable that someone could carry out a terrorist attack and try to pass the blame onto another organisation. So case 1 is an "overt" action, regardless of the secrecy involved in its preparation, case 2 is a "covert" action because the authors are attempting to divert attention onto others who are not responsible. It's not so hard to understand that distinction I think.

I apply this to the Madrid bombings and conclude that the judicial summary - I do not recognise anything we can call an "official version" - is not a conspiracy theory because it concludes that the bombings were carried out by the people who have been detained as part of the investigation, and that these are the same people who claimed responsibility for the attacks. El Mundo, Losantos, and Luis Del Pino ARE promoting a conspiracy theory because they allege that the bombings were not carried out by those detained or those alleged to have claimed responsibility, but by completely different people or organisations who have set out to cast the blame on Islamic terrorists to hide their own involvement. That is what the definition refers to when it talks about secrecy, that is the distinction between what is conspiracy theory or not. You yourself, when you were on the talk pages organising the campaign to change this article, referred to your desire to introduce a section on the conspiracy theories.

In short, calling everything to do with this case a "conspiracy theory" doesn't work - you cannot create a false equivalence between different things.

I am aware that you asked me a couple of days ago for my reasons for rejecting the conspiracy theories - I am away from home at the moment, and have personal commitments which make it difficult, perhaps fortunately, to pass the whole day on Internet. In the next couple of days I will attempt to answer you on this and on El Mundo's fading credibility.

---

Randroide´s answer

that for me IS a conspiracy theory

What a conspiracy theory is for you is something worth of consideration, but that´s not the ultimate criteria that Wikipedia should use.

None of this is to say that the conspiracy theory has to be false

I agree with you. But, then, why do you want to blank sourced information only because you say that "it´s a conspiracy theory"?.

You invented a new nuance to the term "conspiracy theory" to include the (nonexistent, as I will explain) "El Mundo" version and to exclude the current government version.

But even with that invention your argument is very weak. Lets see...

According with the current spanish government version, the allegued "islamists" who allegedly committed the Madrid 2004 bombings have done so with the intention of making it look like someone else has committed it. Why?. Because they did not live like "islamists" at all: They sent their sons to catholic schools, they allowed their wifes to smoke, they ate pork, and, more important, some of them had relations with women of dubious reputation and with local drug and crime scenes.

Federico Jiménez Losantos has said about this issue:

To call "islamists" to these guys, living a life of vice an immorality, is an offense against decent muslims.At the last part of the first third of the program

..and after all that, these immoral men posed in the "vindication video", dressed in white muslim funeral tunics with a green flag with the Shahadah behind them. They were obviously trying to look like "islamists", i.e.: making it look like someone else has committed it, as you said.

I do not recognise anything we can call an "official version" - is not a conspiracy theory because it concludes that the bombings were carried out by the people who have been detained as part of the investigation, and that these are the same people who claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Yes sir, but those people tried to look like "islamists", and they were not behaving as "islamists" in their real personal life.

As I said, I checked all your possible argumentations, and all finish in checkmate against you in this especial issue.

I propose you an amiable "truce": You stop talking about "conspiracy theories" and I stop talking about the "official version".

BTW, we have an agreement between us here: I do not recognise neither anything we can call an "official version. Please note that "El Mundo" editorial line is NOT proclaiming an alternative version. "El Mundo" editorial line only says that the current government version is full of contradictions and impossibilities, but it is not presenting an alternative version.

Current government version: Is that expression good for you?. It is good for me... And there is NOT alternative version nor "conspiratorial version" to talk about by now, but only criticisms made by "El Mundo" to that current government version version. Nothing more and nothing less.

I am aware that you asked me a couple of days ago for my reasons for rejecting the conspiracy theories - I am away from home at the moment, and have personal commitments which make it difficult, perhaps fortunately, to pass the whole day on Internet.

Please feel free to attend your personal compromises. I will need also some time to answer properly the Goma-2 ECO issue. Maybe both of us deserve some rest.Randroide 15:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford Replies: Well I don't want to stretch this out too much but I still think you are missing the point I was making. ETA commandos did not behave openly as ETA commandos, they merged in with their surroundings to enable them to prepare their actions - but those actions were openly claimed in the name of ETA.

If the Madrid bombings were committed by Islamic terrorists, and I believe they were, then it is not necessary, or even helpful, for them to prepare for the attacks by strolling down the Gran Via in Madrid wearing a long beard with a stick of dynamite in one hand and a poster of Bin Laden in the other. Whether or not they all lived as good observant Muslims is irrelevant to this issue - the key point about secrecy in the conspiracy theory definition is that it is used to conceal the real authorship of the attack. So ETA used secrecy in preparation, but not in claiming their attacks. The Islamists charged with the Madrid bombings will have used secrecy in preparation but not in claiming the attack. If it is alleged that Zapatero put the bombs on the trains then that is a conspiracy theory - because the allegation is that the real authors have attempted to conceal their participation by disguising that attack as the action of someone else. I still think its a clear distinction.

Other points: The participation of a national newspaper in propagating a conspiracy theory does not mean that it stops being a conspiracy theory. Nor does the participation of powerful people in spreading the theory.

Blanking information: I am not aware of having blanked any information in this article - the only people who have made significant changes to this article in the last few weeks have been supporters of the conspiracy theories. I have made it clear where I am opposed to the inclusion of that information but I reject any charge of blanking it. I have also always made it clear that I was not in favour of excluding "alternative" explanations of the bombings - I just did not want the article to be dominated by this issue - see my response to your proposal below.

El Mundo - I still intend to explain in full my issues with El Mundo's reporting, in the next few days.

Proposal

The article is too long, and the software is moaning a lot.

I propose to create a new page with the "Controversies" section: Controversies around 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings could be the title.

The text in the main article should be "sanitized" to eliminate any "controversial" issue. It should contain only facts accepted by everyone.Randroide 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

---

--201.54.33.2 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford replies:

Well this is basically what I suggested a few weeks ago - it's a solution that is probably not ideal for either of us but which at least means that the core account of what happened can be more or less stable and maintainable. It is also a solution which seems to have been adopted in other similar cases where controversy threatens any possibility of a decent account of what happened. I can see difficulties, even a simple account of what happened at the time will still touch on disputed issues, but at least the 'expansion' of such disputes can take place in a page more suited to that purpose. I think any new page will probably have to be born with a status of 'controversial' - because it will inevitably end up that way.

---

proposal to create a new page for the controversies

The main article (the "core account", as you properly expressed) should be "cleaned" (read "esterilized") of any controversial issue, i.e.: any reference to who made it, why made it (the 2003 war in Iraq as a allegued cause issue) or which kind of explosive was used, due to the fact that all those issues are disputed issues.

The Leganés explosion should be referenced as an "allegued" suicide, due to the fact that there is not a single picture of video of anyone ("Islamist" or not) alive inside that flat, and that a 2 hour "shooting" with "automatic weapons" that leaves only 5 empty shells is also, uhm, controversial.

Do you agree with these points?. Anyone else want to say anything?Randroide 19:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford replies: No, I don´t agree. Its not possible to reject Leganés just because the people inside the flat were not filming what was going on. I must admit I have never tried the test of filming people blowing themselves up inside a flat - but I doubt the results would be very conclusive. If we invent a standard of proof which we know to be impossible then almost everything becomes "alleged". How many of the explosions on the trains were filmed? How can we say that ETA assasinated Miguel Angel Blanco if no image exists of the execution? Almost all crimes, major or minor, would fail this test of proof.

On excluding the Iraq war I have no problem, that can be moved to controversies - the results of the judicial investigation and the resulting charges against the accused have to be in the main account (its a key event) - but they can be described in an objective non-judgmental way.

I think all controversies discussion should also go to the appropriate discussion page. I will come back to you on the issues of explosives but I think it might be better for the discussion page of the new article to have a section dedicated to each of these issues - in that way this discussion page does not need to be the forum of that debate.

Visitante: I agree with Southofwatford, all the conspiracy theories should be in another article, like in the spanish Wikipedia. Right now the article is very biased, and shows plain lies as facts.

El pozo Téllez Atocha

Well, there is a rumour that ETA "signed" in a subtle form the bombing with initials of the names of the attacked stations: El pozo del Tío Raimundo, Téllez and Atocha.

Yes, this is a rumour or a conspiracy theory, not a legitimate content for the main article. I suggest to create an especific page, where we could also add the issue of "11-M 911 (or 912) days fater 11-S" and the cabalistyc" (sic, yes she said that) implications that the attorney of the case, Olga Sánchez, said to found on that issue.Randroide 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

--201.54.33.2 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford replies: This just gets more and more bizarre, but at least this one is very simple to deal with. There is no station called Tellez. The name refers to the street near Atocha where the train was when the bombs exploded - it was about 500 metres from Atocha station so we could just refer to it as "Near Atocha" - but then that would make ENAA and not ETA and spoil a good rumour. Also, why does Santa Eugenia get left out?

I have not posted anything more on this page, even though I had something prepared, because I think with the proposal to create a new page for the controversies it would be more appropriate to discuss all of these issues there

---

...it´s only a rumour, Southofwatford. Of course that the whole thing has very little substance. That´s the difference between rumour and fact.Randroide 18:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 12:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford replies: "No substance" would be more accurate - given the evident lack of knowledge of the person who invented it, obviouslyy not from Madrid. But what happens if El Mundo decide to report it - does it then become a fact?

The "mistakes" made by the spanish police

Southofwatford wrote: Nobody is denying that he [Sánchez Manzano] said it [The Nitroglycerine mess], but its also a fact that he has since said he was mistaken

Too much mistakes, Southofwatford. Too much of them in such a grave issue as the worst terrorist attack in Europe.

• The "mistake" commited with the allegued Metenamine contamination

• The "mistake" of using the same picture twice to ilustrate the "Vallecas bag" and the Renault Kangoo explosive (!!!).
• The "mistake" of the "Islamic tape" (an important proof) founded in the Renaul Kangoo returned to the owner of the small van [12].
• The "mistake" of the wrong Vallecas bag sent to the judge.
• The "mistake" of wrong date handwritten in the Vallecas X-Ray plate

...one starts to wonder if some guys in the spanish police leadership are seriously feeble-minded, or if they are trying to hide something.Randroide 19:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

--201.54.33.2 12:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford replies: One mistake is too many, but this list is not really as devastating as you seem to think, because almost all of them are correctable errors and some already have been corrected. This would not be the first investigation where mistakes have been made, and the sheer size of the investigation and the numbers of people involved make it quite possible that mistakes will occur. The key thing is to recognise and correct them. The same size and numbers of people is also what makes it unlikely that the whole thing could be a conspiracy by police officers - so much "invented" evidence and nobody within the security forces saying anything. That means they all have to be involved

--Platonides 09:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Precisely those who found it weren't policies. They were patched on the way. So in a moment they corriged saying "dinamite is component of all dinamites", and finally alleging that he wasn't talking about 11-M on the 11-M comission. We could add much more "mistakes", as don't giving the analysis of the train bombs, or giving the judge another bag when he asked for the Vallecas one... Can you call a correctable error not doing autopsias of the Leganes suicides? Or the missing analysis of trains when now they're scrapped?

The Deceptions of El Mundo

--201.54.33.2 12:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Section introduced by Southofwatford

Looks like the controversies page might need a special section dedicated to El Mundo. 10 days ago they present notable "experts" in explosives analysis, concealing who they really are (see description above on this page). Now they have openly and deliberately manipulated the answers made by senior police officers to the parliamentary commission:

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/08/07/espana/1154910230.html

If there is so much "evidence" that there has been a cover up, why does the newspaper leading the so-called investigation need to resort to manipulation and deception? This is not independent investigative reporting for the simple reason that independent investigative journalists do not resort to these methods. Having decided in advance what their objective is, they now try to twist the information to fit that objective. They had credibility - they have now lost it.

Perhaps a section should be included on the lies and manipulations of the right wing media regarding their version of what happened. We dont lack examples. That way the article would be more balanced and I wouldnt object to the inclusion of conspiracy theories... What do you think? --Burgas00 17:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an article about Sanchez Manzano. Even when his declaration are not a probe of the Kangoo being empty (althoug supports it), the important ones are the declarations of those who opened the Van, saying it was empty (ok, there could be thing under the seats and in the guantera, but not so many) those people haven't been called by the judge. It could be extremely easy to call them and clear out it. Platonides 09:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

—Southofwatford 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Well this is the problem with the article, it distorts and misrepresents what Sanchez Manzano said - if you look at the original text from the Commission it is clear that he arrived AFTER the police had entered the Kangoo. Why doesn't El Mundo make that clear? Perhaps because they would have no story. Why don't you make clear that one of the things under the seats was the bag containing detonators? The article is wilful, deliberate distortion to try and make a story out of nothing. Nice try, but they have been caught out on this one.

912?!?

In the Responsability section of the article, one reads "This event took place exactly 912 days after the September 11 terrorist attack on America in 2001.". I think that it should say "exactly two and a half years" instead of "exactly 912 days", otherwise a reader will hardly be able to see what's so special about the 912 days remark.--Húsönd 14:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No, because people keep on changing it to 911 days, because that's a popular myth. Dr Debug (Talk) 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, maybe a solution would be to write "exactly two and a half years (912 days)".--Húsönd 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No opposition, so changed. --Húsönd 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Recovering neutrality

Well, most of the information erased by Burgas00 has been recovered, but it's necessary to recover the neutrality. Burgas00 introduced his opinions about several mass media of Spain, as El Mundo is a conservative media, etc, and deleted the references to false information spread by PRISA:

• In the days that followed the attacks, too many rumors and deliberate hoaxes were spread, specially in Internet, but also in prestigious media, as the Radio Station SER, where it was maintained that the corpses of suicidal terrorists have been found in the trains [13].

Burgas00 tried to impose a political point of view, denigrating to the mass media (the second and fourth newspaper and the second radio station in Spain) that do not defend his thesis. A neutral issue demands to gather all the important points of view (not only PRISA or ABC). I included information about theories from these media (not only the Burgas00's opinions about them):

• as well as accuse affirm that the "three capital evidences on the lawsuit have been falsified by elements on the Policy statements":

• • the knapsackp-bomb that appears in a police station. These bomb would "have walken around Madrid, without the TEDAX (bomb experts at spanish police) had detected it in the El Pozo railway station. Within the sac, a device that could not explode, based on a mobile phone with a unnnecesary SIM card, but that it opportunely lead to a scapegoat few hours before the elections" [14].

• • A Renault Kangoo van where appear 61 objects, among them rest of dynamite Goma-2 ECO. However, police would have declared that it was empty after reviewing with dogs at the first time. A recent attempt to link ETA to the bombings and to discredit the security forces occurred in May 2006 when the newspaper El Mundo published on its front page that a business card of the basque firm Mondragón had been found in this van. According to El Mundo this important piece of evidence had been omitted in the Police report. According to right-wing conspiracy theorists this proved an important link between the bombers and ETA as well as the "lies" of the government and security forces. Albeit, the firm Mondragón has no relationship with ETA and, more importantly, it was later revealed that, what had been found in the van was a music CD of the popular Spanish 80s rock group "Orquesta Mondragón" in a pile of various other music CDs. [15]

• • A Skoda Fabia that later appears to 20 meters of the Kangoo. Both vehicles would been used by the terrorists. --Gimferrer 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision Of Summary

Southofwatford 11:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC) The judicial summary puts the number of people killed as 191, and the provisional number of wounded at 1755 - I have edited the article summary to reflect this data.

Creation Of A Neutral Article

Southofwatford 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Nobody has objected to the suggestion of creating a separate page to deal with controversies or alternative theories about the Madrid bombings. I have started work on a description of the bombings which reduces it to the bare facts of where the explosions occurred and a timeline (based on the summary of the judicial investigation). I suggest a section which can be called something like "Description Of The Bombings" to include this information. I see no need for the Summary section given that the core article is probably not going to be any longer than the existing version - so suggest that the new description section replace this. Any information in the summary that does not fit in the core description and which is not included elsewhere in the current version can be temporarily moved to the Controversies section pending either a move to the new Controversies page, or to be kept in another section of the main article. Just so nobody gets nervous I am not proposing to delete anything.

Proposed corrections of fact

This statement is inaccurate:

"The provincial chief of the TEDAX, bomb experts of the Spanish police, declared on 12 July 2004, that damage in the trains could not be caused by dynamite, but by some type of military explosive, like C3 or C4."

The literal declaration is the following:

"que tenían claro que no era Titadine porque este tipo de explosivo muerde, es decir, que no tiene corte limpio, en cambio un alto explosivo corta totalmente y una vez visto los resultados de las explosiones podía tratarse de un C3 o un C4, que es un alto explosivo que procede a cortar limpiamente."

They were certain that it was not Titadyne because this type of explosive bytes, that is, it does not cut [the metal] cleanly, whereas a high explosive cuts [the metal] totally and once the results of the explosions were seen, it COULD be a C3 or C3, which is a high explosive that cuts [the metal] cleanly.

Let me further point out that the agent is reporting first impressions: this was a declaration of the provincial chief's impressions at the site. Nothing implies that he maintained the same opinion on July 12th (page 53 of the indictment, "auto de procesamiento").

Finally, I do think this paragraph overemphasizes C3 or C4, in favour of conspiracy theories. Another expert, one which directly observed one of the bombs that didn't explode (in Atocha), says:

Que por lo que apreció del artefacto y sus conocimientos, podía intuir que se trataba de un explosivo industrial (dinamita y los del Ejercito, tipo plástico) utilizado en la Industria y que era de media-alta potencia.

...says that from what he could tell from the artifact and his knowledge, he had the feeling it was an industrial explosive (DYNAMITE and those of the Army, plastic type), used in Industry and of medium-high power

Clearly, dynamite is not ruled out by an expert who did see the explosive (pag 51 indictment).

Furthermore, and more important, the indictment (auto de procesamiento) reports in a joint forensic study that traces of dynamite were found in 8 out of 12 explosion sites.

Therefore, I request that either these counterarguments be included or that the provincial chief declaration be excluded altogether.

–— Southofwatford 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) My proposal is that all discussion on the type of explosive used should be moved to the new "Controversies" page, and that the main article should simply note the accusations that have been made against the accused as statements of fact. I will ensure that your counter arguments are included in this discussion.

–— One thing the discussion page will have to make clear is the chronological order of some of these statements - the conspiracy theorists like to mix the times of things so that a statement made in the heat of the moment on the day of the bombings can have more importance attached to it than the results of the subsequent investigation. It is clear as well that the standard of proof required by them to assert the presence of other types of explosive is much much lower than the significant evidence that exists for the use of Goma2-ECO.

According the provincial chief of the TEDAX, deactivated rucksacks contained some other type of explosive.

There is no source for this, and the declartion of the provincial chief in the indictment does not include this statement. I request that it be deleted.

–—Southofwatford 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) I agree - unless a source is provided this statement should not survive the editing process.

The 13th bomb which was transferred to a police station, contained dynamite, but did not explode, because there were not two wires connecting the explosives to the detonator.

Not precise and uncertain. There are two versions in the indictment. An X-ray, according to an expert, shows a single disconnection (two wires disconnected between themselves). However, the person who deactivated the bomb disputes this and says the bomb was ready to go.

–—Southofwatford 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) The problem is that if there are two versions in the indictment then it will remain uncertain. However, both should be included.

On 3 April 2004, in Leganes, south Madrid, four Arab terrorists blew themselves up, killing one special assault police and wounding eleven policemen. According to witnesses and media between five and eight suspects escaped on that day. [23]

The total number of killed terrorist was seven. I dispute the "Arab" adjective. They were all North Africans from the Magreb. Also, I can find no record in the indictment of 5-8 suspects escaping that day. There is record of a single suspect escaping who was later caught in Serbia.

–—Southofwatford 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) I agree on the use of the word "Arab" - I suspect the inaccuracies are part of what survived from the original account, that part of it which hasn't been destroyed by the recent attempts to change the whole orientation of the article towards the conspiracy theories. I have already corrected an inaccuracy on the number of victims, I have prepared a corrected description of the explosions and timings. I will get to the rest in time, and these inaccuracies will be dealt with.

....and contains weird coincidences like the Moroccan El Chino who distributed hash in the Basque country. A notebook of Carmen Toro, member of Asturian group, contained the cellphone number of the chief of TEDAX.

I dispute that "weird coincidences", in general, constitute statements of fact. Only facts should be included in the article. That El Chino distributed hash in the Basque country is immaterial. He also distributed hash elsewhere, notably in Madrid. This is clearly directed at pointing to an unproved ETA connection.

Furthermore, it is not proved that Carmen Toro had the telephone number of Sánchez Manzano. Manzano angrily disputed this claim in the 11-M Commission, and declared that Judge Del Olmo called the number in front of him and somebody else answered. This without the PP representative pushing the issue or Del Olmo contradicting Manzano.

The cellphones used in the bombing were purchased from a shop of Mausilli Kalaji, a Spanish police officer and former member of Al Fatah.

Again, this is trying to point to an unproven police connection. Kalaji is a Spanish police officer but he has not been indicted of any crime. His Al Fatah connections, if true, do not mean anything. Al Fatah and islamic fundamentalists are bitter enemies.

–—Southofwatford 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Any talk of "weird coincidences" should not really get further than this discussion page. The previous activities of the accused, criminal or not, have no relevance to the main account of what happened unless such a connection can be demonstrated.

'Other remarks.

The discussion on dynamite types is premature and unduly draws attention to unsupported claims by El Mundo. In effect, this is only the latest onslaught by El Mundo and Libertad Digital to cast doubts on the prosecution's case. I don't think it deserves such a prominent place in the main article. If anything, it should be sent to the "Alternative theories" article.

–—Southofwatford 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Which is where it is proposed that it will go.

The same goes for the "Oquesta Mondragón" paragraph. At any rate, I dispute that a Mondragon card could point to ETA, except in the most paranoid minds. Mondragon has operations all over Spain. Claiming that a business card of Mondragon might point to ETA is an El Mundo claim, and it is almost like saying that a Coca-Cola bottle points to Atlanta. No serious policeman would make such a connection.

Posted by Luis F. Arean.

–—Southofwatford 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) One of the most farcical stories in the whole affair - but I do want it included in the Controversies page because it reveals so clearly the intentionality behind many of these stories. El Mundo should be a topic in itself in the Controversies page simply because it has repeatedly printed stories that are either just plain inaccurate or which manipulate information to present a distorted picture - there has already been some discussion on this page about this.

In that case I think should be mandatory to explain a bit more this for non-spaniards:

The firm Mondragón has no relationship with ETA but it could point to ETA as well as the Coranic cassette pointed to Al Qaeda conception.

I had rephrased it a bit and added a reference to an open letter from Javier Gurruchaga (leader of the rock band). ok? Junjan 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Hope this do not bother anyone, but I have reformatted all the references/footnotes following the current wikipedia standards. Plainly stylistic issue. Also I have added some new or complementary references, and some missing ones. I will try to search my files to add more of the missing ones. Junjan 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

While rechecking the new footnotes I realized that the user "75.0.96.134" had deleted the full section of "responsability". Can anybody check the IP of this guy and ban him/her? Junjan 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

—Southofwatford 09:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC) This page suffers from repeated, and usually anonymous, vandalism - I don't expect this to be the last attack. Hopefully the proposal to move a lot of the more controversial material to a new page will make the main account less vulnerable to this sort of attack. Nice job on the footnotes, I was thinking of doing something similar and I'm happy for you to get there before me :). One less job that needs doing on this page.

Junjan 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Another vandal removed the following paragraph without discussion:

The Partido Popular, now in opposition, as well as certain media outlets such as El Mundo newspaper, [20] continue to support alternative theories relating the attack to a vast conspiracy to remove them from power. These theories consider that the Socialist Party (PSOE), ETA as well as members of the security forces and national and foreign (Morocco) secret services were implicated in the bombings. [21]

The unknown user argument was:

The whole paragraph is infair and untrue. AFAIK, the media is discovering many black spots in the official version, but not making conspiracy theories of any kind (individuals at blogs don't count).)

IMO the conspirarcy theories of El Mundo are broadly known, some of them have been debunked -in a very embarrasing way- by the Police. This is further stated on the external links in "Disputing explanation of facts made by current spanish government and judiciary", "Disputing explanation of facts made by current spanish government and judiciary" and "Disputing aforementioned disputers". Though more citations from newspapers and media other tha OpenDemocracy(20) could be added to support this paragraph. I can look on that.

Southofwatford 19:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)I have removed the latest piece of vandalism by conspiracy theorists which removed sourced information and replaced it with unsourced and contentious data - all of this is going onto another page anyway!

Beginning Of Major Edit To Produce Neutral Article

Southofwatford 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Not a very good start - I forgot to sign in before saving changes, please note that all changes made with IP 83.46.29.202 are mine!!

As discussed previously on this page I have replaced the summary with a description and timeline of the bombings. Everything removed from the summary has been placed further up the article for the moment, I am not intending to suggest that these are permanent places. Clean up will take place of these changes as I advance on the edit.

There is a problem - there is duplication of information, or different descriptions of the same thing, between the main article and that on the aftermath of the ombings. I think it would make more sense to merge these two articles into one, at the same time as we move all disputed information into the new controversies page - what do people think?

SOW you seem to be doing a good job fixing up the article. Keep up the good work! --Burgas00 21:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford 05:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC) On the last changes by Randroide: You have accepted previously, Randroide, that changes have to be discussed on this page. I know you accepted it reluctantly, but nevertheless you had to acknowledge it. Discussing changes does not mean responding after the event! You have also proposed yourself that all controversial information should go to a new page. So I do what I believe to be an entirely neutral description of the bombings, and the first thing you do to it is to add conspiracy theorists references to the first paragraph! The existence of the 13th bomb is of course disputed (although without evidence) - the controversies page will be the place for that debate - as you proposed. In the meantime I have moved your references to the controversies section so that the work I have done on cleaning the account does not get ruined by the constant determination of the conspiracy theorists to introduce their claims all over the article.

Randroide 08:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Hi Southofwatford, I hope you enjoyed a good vacation. I did. Back to work now.

1. You now make changes in the article without previous discussion, and all of us should play by the same rules.

Southofwatford 08:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I have made it clear always on this page what my intentions are on changes. I have also left untouched many controversial changes that were made by you and other conspiracy theorists without any attempt to discuss them

2. The article is not "disputed" now.

Southofwatford 08:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC) The reasons why it was disputed continue to exist. Are you now saying that you are reverting to your previous practice of introducing as much conspiracy theory material as possible? If that is the case I will seek reintroduction of the disputed status and possibly page protection too.

3. You wrote: So I do what I believe to be an entirely neutral description of the bombings

Your beliefs about what is neutral are not accurate. To introduce, as you did, in the first section of the article a reference to a hotly disputed topic as the 13th bomb is not a good way to "settle down" a consensus version of the main article, and to concentrate the disputed topics in one section.

Southofwatford 08:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I introduced it in a way which acknowledges its existence and nothing more. It is completely neutral, I do not try to suggest anything about this bomb. Pretending it doesn't exist as you did in your latest edit is not a solution.

Avoid that or we will never have a different article for the controversies. Please re-read what I wrote one month ago:

The main article (the "core account", as you properly expressed) should be "cleaned" (read "esterilized") of any controversial issue Randroide 19:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford 08:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC) My changes are clean, it is a straightforward account of bare facts

...the assertion that the 13th bomb was really in the trains that nefarious morning and that it is a reliable exhibit is a hotly disputed topic, as you know.Randroide 08:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford 08:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I made no assertions about the bomb of any kind except for one, it exists - that is the only assertion I make.

No positive evidence of any kind from any source has been provided to show that this bomb was planted - nothing.

Southofwatford 08:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Ok Randroide, ignore the header to this page on controversial changes! I said to you before that between us we can take this article to hell, that looks like your preferred option at the moment. Either your offer to remove controversies to another page was not genuine or you have received new instructions from Black Pawn central office. I made a genuine attempt to make a neutral attempt to rebuild this article - your only response has been to sabotage it.

Southofwatford 10:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Randroide, it makes no sense at all to litter a neutral version of the article with references to the controversies section. I suggest that when the new page is created we can have a small section near the beginning of the article that alerts readers to the existence of the controversies page, and one at the end in the "See Also" section. Otherwise the whole flow of the article will be completely disrupted by references to disputes. By insisting on putting something into the description you are just putting at risk any chance of consensus on this. Having put in time and effort on thinking about the whole article I am going to be much less tolerant of those whose only visible interest in the article is introducing their pet obsessions into in as many places as possible.

Randroide answers to Southofwatford

Uh, the header in the talk page, I forgot about that. You are right. But neither you are heeding that words. I suggest you to heed that words and discuss changes here first. As I said, we must all play by the same rules.

—Southofwatford 17:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Justify that accusation. I have done very few edits to this document, unlike the conspiracy theorists - and at all times I have been open about my intentions, unlike the conspiracy theorists. You know very well, Randroide, that I proposed to do a major edit here because I told you and everybody else who passes by the discussion page weeks ago. Thats a fact. A second fact is that I repeated my intentions a few days before I carried out the edit. I got support from other users for proceeding with the edit, not from people I know or from an organisation that I support. Read the discussion page for the last few weeks Randroide and tell me that this is not so. Now, compare and contrast time. When have you adopted a similar approach? I cannot think of any occasion when you have tried to introduce your changes by prior consensus - except perhaps after the TWO occasions when I have had to remind you that imposing your changes on others goes directly against what is written on the header of this page. So don't try and pretend that my approach and yours have been the same, there is no similarity. On one thing you are consistent, you are very good at telling other people what the rules are - even when you do not follow them yourself. Not a personal attack, just based on what is recorded on these pages.

• You wrote: I introduced it in a way which acknowledges its existence and nothing more. It is completely neutral, I do not try to suggest anything about this bomb.

No. You are suggesting that the 13th bomb was in the trains. You can do that of course, but in that case it has also has also to be mentioned that that assertion is disputed.

—Southofwatford 17:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Read the wording, I deliberately used the word reported for the number of bombs. Why did I do that - because I wanted a version that would not be controversial. I put effort into producing what I still firmly believe to be a neutral account of the events on the morning of 11th March. Your response, of all the options you had available, was perhaps one of the most destructive possible - you just decided to plant more conspiracy theory links in the middle of the first paragraph. Perhaps you still don't like the wording even when you have read it again, you always had the option to suggest and discuss alternatives. You rejected that option.

• You wrote: No positive evidence of any kind from any source has been provided to show that this bomb was planted - nothing.

Status: Untrue. This evidence was presented: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

I do not known what do you regard as "positive evidence", but your respectable personal standards are not relevant here. Only Wikipedia policies are, and according with those policies news published in newspapers are relevant.

—Southofwatford 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Well my point was not really about Wikipedia policies, although once again I note your liking for lecturing on the subject. My point is that things have changed in your absence, as I am sure you know. El Mundo, that so reliable source, has now openly made the accusation that the bombings were a golpe de estado (a coup d'etat - no English word exists to my knowledge). That means that the position of "we are only asking some questions", or "we just have some doubts about the investigation", is no longer valid. An open affirmation requires positive evidence to support it. In the case of the Vallecas bomb, the conspiracy theory accusation is that it was planted - a lack of security (unproven in my opinion), is not evidence of a bomb being planted. Nor is an unidentified DNA profile. This is negative evidence, positive evidence is something which increases the belief in something, not just decreasing the belief in something else. Thats why I say there is no positive evidence that I have seen for the bomb being planted. Unless, of course, I apply a much much lower standard of proof for the conspiracy theory than that which I apply to the judicial investigation - something which the conspiracy theorists tend to do.

• You wrote: I said to you before that between us we can take this article to hell

Yeah. And you are wrong.

• This article was in hell before you and me: It was an outdated, unsourced and partial article.

• Now its much better, due to the fact that you and me know that the other one is watching, so we only add sourced information. Is a blessing to have two civilized opponents editing the same article, and I say it seriously.

–Southofwatford 18:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I don't agree - I think it has the potential to be better but at the moment it is a mess - the removal of the controversies to another page is fundamental to that - at the moment the controversies section brings great pleasure to those who wanted to introduce those ideas but does nothing to improve the coherence or quality of the article. I guess the difference of opinion comes from me not seeing the controversy section as being so important, whereas for you it appears to be the most important thing. Despite all the changes that have been made in the last few weeks, I had to go through and check the most basic facts about the bombings - those that are'nt affected by the theories.

• You wrote: Either your offer to remove controversies to another page was not genuine or you have received new instructions from Black Pawn central office

I am impervious to personal attacks. I suggest you to save your energies to improve the article, but you can do as you wish.

–Southofwatford 18:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I already have used energy on improving the article, you used yours on disrupting the changes I made over what I believe any neutral observer would see as a detail.

My offering was, of course, genuine, but, as I said, all controversial assertions should be removed from the main article. The 13th bomb being present in the trains is a controversial assertion.

No "sanitizing" of controversial issues in the main article, no new article about controversies. That´s it.

• You wrote: I am going to be much less tolerant of those whose only visible interest in the article is introducing their pet obsessions into in as many places as possible.

Personal attack again. Please, stop doing that. It´s useless, its unpolite and it is against the Wikipedia policies. Thank you.Randroide 10:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

–Southofwatford 18:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Its not a personal attack, its directed at all of those who are obsessed with any part of the article that deals with the controversial issues, but show no interest in the overall structure, coherence or content. Take that personally if you like, but show me something today that you have touched today that has nothing to do with your precious theories.

Randroide 09:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)I have the "obsession" of including all the sourced facts about this issue, indeed. You do not have this "obsession", thats clear.

Anyone consulting the history of the article and our user contributions can see who made the greatest overall contribution to the article and to Wikipedia. Please do not put yourself in evidence asking me superfluous and unpolite questions.

Changes Made Without Consensus

Randroide, I see that you have done a revert of one of my changes on the grounds that it was done without consensus - I did not flag it as an individual change so its true that it was not specifically identified. However, it was done as part of a series of changes which were very clearly signalled in advance of the edition, and as being part of the process of neutralising the article.

Now, are you seriously going to maintain that organising the links around their position on conspiracy theories is neutral? Are you going to maintain that this article is about the conspiracy theories? Do you propose to organise the links in the same way after moving the controversies to another page?

You have set a dangerous precedent, virtually none of your changes have been done with consensus or prior discussion. You have always preferred to impose changes and argue the case later. Given the precedent you have set I assume you cannot be against reverting this article back to the beginning of June, with that simple step we eliminate a huge number of changes which were imposed without prior discussion or consensus? Personally, it wouldn't bother me very much, although its not my favourite option. An alternative solution might be to accept that the main neutral article should not revolve around the conspiracy theories, and nor should the links. Interesting that you focused on this change, interesting that the only changes I have made that bother you in any way affect the treatment of conspiracy theories. Interesting that none of the anonymous changes made recently by your black pawn allies seem to bother you in the same way.

Randroide answers

You wrote: Interesting that you focused on this change, interesting that the only changes I have made that bother you in any way affect the treatment of conspiracy theories.

Of course. The other changes you made were reasonable changes. I have nothing to argue about. I am not here "against you", I am here against unreasonable changes.

You wrote: Interesting that none of the anonymous changes made recently by your black pawn allies seem to bother you in the same way.

Same argument applies here.

You wrote: Randroide, I see that you have done a revert of one of my changes on the grounds that it was done without consensus - I did not flag it as an individual change so its true that it was not specifically identified. However, it was done as part of a series of changes which were very clearly signalled in advance of the edition, and as being part of the process of neutralising the article.

It is unfair to ask me to play by the rules while you infringe them. Please discuss here controversial editions before making them.

–Southofwatford 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC) The change in question was included in a package that I flagged, and which I have explained in my answers yesterday - if you are going to play by the rules then all of your changes from yesterday have to go, they are controversial and undiscussed. If you want to remove them thats fine by me, otherwise I will do it. Then at least we can start to talk about there being a level playing field and the rules really applying to everyone.

—Southofwatford 07:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Please don't play the victim or pretend that you are abiding by the rules until you have taken the necessary steps. As I made clear in detail in my reply to you yesterday, my intentions on editing have been flagged in advance, sometimes weeks in advance. The only major edit I have made falls into that category. You cannot say the same, the vast majority of your changes have been imposed without any prior discussion.

Randroide 08:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)then all of your changes from yesterday have to go

No way, sir: My "change" in the links section was a reversion of an undiscussed nonconsensus change made in august. It was no change, it was a reversion of an undisscused nonconsensus change made while I was on vacation.

my intentions on editing have been flagged in advance

That gives you no carte blanche to do whatever you want, due to the fact that your intentions were formulated in a very, very general way. The discussion first rule to controversial editings also applies to you.

For the sake of conveniency, non-controversial editions, I propose, should not be discussed here. I think that we are mature enough to known what is and what is not controversial.

—Southofwatford 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC) The new section you added yesterday clearly falls into controversial

Randroide 08:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Yesterday I added nothing. I simply restored sections removed without previous discussion or consensus.

The conveniency of the classification of the links according with their acceptance or non-acceptance of the current government version is a no-brainer. Please take a look at this example of another controversial topic to see that this is nothing new.

Could you please try to imagine the cacophony of those links mixed without order?. If I follow a link about a controversial topic, I prefer to known in which side the website I am about to visit is. Please note that I even created a section for the critics of the disputers of the official version.

–Southofwatford 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC) The example you give is irrelevant, I have nothing against classifying the links - although there is hardly a cacophony here. The question I asked yesterday, and which you haven't answered yet, is why this division should be made on the conspiracy theories when all the references to these issues are being removed from the main article to another page?

Randroide 08:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)These issues are NOT to be removed unless the article is "sanitized" from controversial issues, as I said one month ago.

13 bombs in the trains is a controversial issue, due to the fact that there are a lot of reasons to doubt the 13th bomb genuineness. Those reasons were published in a newspaper, the second spanish newspaper. If 13 bombs in the trains are present in the main article, the doubts abot the genuineness of the 13th bomb will be also present in that same article. Be sure about this.

You wrote:I assume you cannot be against reverting this article back to the beginning of June

You should be kidding, I assume.

We could not do that, even if we wanted, because that would be blanking. The article is not ours, the article belongs to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has rules (that here, in the english version are enforced) to preserve sourced information.

–Southofwatford 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC) You are quite right - how about just removing the changes that both of us have made which have not been discussed prior to insertion, that would not blank anyone elses work?

Randroide 08:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I made no change, as I said. I simply reverted an undiscussed nononsensus change, just like you deleting the doubts about the 13th bomb from the introduction. If you have the right to do that, I have the right to restore the classification in the links section. Same rules for all, sir. Fair play, please.

To avoid you false expectations about what´s going to happen with the article, I suggest you to read carefully the article John F. Kennedy assassination, because that´s the model for the article we are discussing here, an that´s the result of the enforcing of Wikipedia rules. Look at the exquisite wording of that article. In that article the U.S. government explanation of the event has no especial rights, and sourced conspiracy theories presented in a NPOV manner are on equal foot with the U.S. government version, due to the simnple fact that those theories are part of the explanations given by researchers to the event.

Moreover: "Conspiracy theories" (I am using your expression on purpose, because I want to be understood by you) about the John F. Kennedy assassination were not published in the newspapers. Newspapers bought the U.S. government version lock stock and barrel.

In the case of the Madrid bombings, newspaper and radio stations are publishing rebuttals of the current spanish government version of what happened. My position is even stronger that the position of the JFK assasination "conspirationists".

Randroide 19:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

–Southofwatford 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I have no objections at all to the conspiracy theories being discussed fully in a separate article on the controversies, so whats the issue? Although note my comments on positive evidence yesterday, we are no longer just talking about rebuttals, but about explicit accusations that require positive evidence to back them up. I assume that this is not an alternative proposal to your previous one?

Randroide 08:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)The issue is that government explanations are on equal footing than published alternative explanations (what you call "conspiracy theories") supported by facts and presented with NPOV. As I said one month ago, I oppose the separate article for the "conspiracy theories" if the main article is not sanitized from the current spanish government version as well.

I propose a estrictly descriptive main article, only a recitation of undisputed facts: 10 bombs exploded that morning, 2 of them were detonated in situ, in the morning of the next day an additional bomb appeared in the Police Office that allowed the detentions...and so on. The interpretation of the facts should be made only in the secondary article, where the Official Conspiracy Theory (i.e., the current spanish government version) should be at the same level that the Un-Officcial Conspiracy Theory.

And please, stop disrupting the continuity of my messages, I do not like this format of conversation. Thank you.Randroide 08:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Undiscussed Non-Consensus Changes

Randroide, the new section you introduced yesterday on the 13th bomb was inserted without any prior discussion or agreement. Thats what I am referring to - please remove it.

The change you reverted yesterday was a revertion back to a change that was equally never discussed or agreed and you still do not answer my questions about it. I have questioned the reasons for it's existence in a sanitized article, and thats why I removed it.

Randroide 08:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)What you propose would be blanking, we can not remove that material. All sourced material is welcome in Wikipedia. If you think that the text is POV, please propose a neutralization.

If the article is really going to be sanitized, please remove the reference to 13 bombs in the trains from the introduction and all references to the islamists from the main article and I will remove the titles for the links. I propose you to work on a new "sanitized" article in a private atelier until we reach a consensus.

–Southofwatford 10:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much. Your contribution, presumably, is just to wait and block anything that anyone proposes that you don't like. So far, you have made no other contribution to reaching a neutral article, apart from destructive editing. I do intend to continue with the article I am working on, most likely for publication elsewhere. I am not going to waste hours or days of my spare time making an effort to produce a balanced account just so that a Black Pawn slaps a conspiracy theory into the middle of it - its not worth it, life is too short.

The Thirteenth Bomb

Once you have removed your controversial and undiscussed changes on this issue I suggest the following solution on the description - not that it "appeared" in the police station, but a further bag was identified as a bomb in the police station. Thats not judgemental, for or against.

Randroide 09:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)The addition of new sourced facts it´s not and can not be "controversial", so it does not need previous discussion.

–Southofwatford 10:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC) "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." One rule for Randroide , another for the rest. Randroide can add or remove, others have to obey Randroide's elastic rules.

Quotes from Randroide: "Uh, the header in the talk page, I forgot about that. You are right. But neither you are heeding that words. I suggest you to heed that words and discuss changes here first. As I said, we must all play by the same rules." TWICE you have had to acknowledge this. Fortunately for you Wiki does not operate 3 strikes and you are out.

Your new section was introduced without any discussion and it's content is controversial - if you do not remove it I will, if you want to complain to someone in Wikipedia then go ahead. Consensus will come from returning to the situation where we were yesterday before you embarked on your destructive editing of my efforts to produce a neutral description. Do not pretend you had no other alternatives, you made no effort to seek consensus before planting conspiracy theory information in the middle of my piece.

Randroide 12:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Please, be more specific. Are you talking about the restoration of the hierarchies in the links section or abouth the 13th bomb new section?.

The wording of those facts can be, so please focus on the wording.

I agree with your argument about "identified", but it should be noted also in the article (and sourced, of course) that no inventory of objects was made in the train stations.

–Southofwatford 10:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Why should such a statement be included in a sanitised account? Events must be recorded - the idea that the "islamists" cannot be mentioned is absurd.

Randroide 12:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)If you want to remove "controversial" stuff from the main article due to size limits, that´s right. But the autorship of the bombings by the "islamists" is also controversial, and all controversies should go (or all controversies should stay, as you wish).

Randroide 12:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)OK, Southofwatford. You made it. You blanked sourced information. Could you please tell us why?.

–Southofwatford 12:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC) See above, I shouldn't need to repeat it again.

Randroide 12:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I propose the next section to be added. Any comments?.

The 13th bomb: The clues in the 13th bomb allowed the police to arrest the first allegued perpetrators on Saturday, 13 March, when three Moroccans (Jamal Zougam, Mohamed Chaoui and Mohamed Bekkaliand) and two Indian citizens were arrested .

The 13th bomb validity as an exhibit is disputed. The next topics are under discussion:

• Wether the bomb was really in the trains. In the morning of the bombings, the trains were double checked by the EOD policemen to be sure that no unexploded devices were there. The 13th bomb was not found then. The only EOD policeman that had memories of handling a heavy (the 13th bomb weighed around 24 pounds) bag in that morning in El Pozo station asserted positively that the heavy bag he handled in the train station was not the bag of the 13th bomb.

• Wether that exhibit has a chain of custody.

• • A spanish police report concluded that the bomb could be manipulated by unidentified persons in Ifema ("pudo ser manipulada por personas no identificadas en el Ifema"). Ifema is the Madrid exhibition center where objects found in the trains were temporarily stored.
  • DNA from a unidentified male was found in the bag.

–Southofwatford 12:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Any comments? There is no attempt in your proposal to represent both sides of the story.

Reasons for the "Total dispute" tag

The article presents the disputed current spanish government explanation as an undisputed fact. That is a violation of the NPOV.

For instance: A total of thirteen improvised explosive devices were reported to have been placed on the trains

User:Southofwatford deletes any reference I make to the fact that the genuineness of the 13th bomb (the bomb that leaded to the "islamist" trail) has been seriously disputed in major spanish media.Randroide 12:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

---

–Southofwatford 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Randroide, anyone who reads the discussion page will realise in 5 minutes that this is not the reason for the total dispute tag. The idea that the article represents the spanish government explanation is laughable considering the amount of conspiracy theory junk that has been placed in it over the last two months. I made a genuine attempt to define a neutral version, including careful wording on the quantity of bombs, your only response is to make exaggerated claims of this kind. The statement you include is absolutely 100% factually correct - I ask once again for you to look at the use of the word reported

---

Randroide 12:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)A total of thirteen improvised explosive devices were reported to have been placed on the trains is absolutely 100% factually correct, yes, you are right, but The authenticity of the 13th bomb is disputed is also absolutely 100% factually correct. So I propose to introduce it with a link to the section you blanked about the 13th bomb. Any comments?.

---

–Southofwatford 12:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Don't be ridiculous - how can we have any possibility of making a clean version if you are going to insist on marking every aspect or event where you have a conspiracy theory as being disputed? A cleaned account makees no reference to either side of the story, but it does have to record events. The more of this exchange we have the more pessimistic I am about any possibility of consensus. I have made concessions in your direction, but you just seem to see that as a signal to ask for more. Either you show a genuine willingness to work towards a cleaned version, or we leave it. But I am no longer prepared to be as passive as I was in July and August. If you turn your back on the possibility of consensus then you turn your back on any possibility of improving this article.

---

Randroide 12:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)I do not make the event disputed (that would be "original research"), the event is disputed in the spanish media, and that fact should be in the article to give the whole picture to the reader.

Please define very explicitly what do you mean when you say "a cleaned version". Some examples would be welcome.

By a "cleaned version" I mean a version that only describes undisputed facts.

• The hour and place of the explosions, the number of dead and wounded people, the fact that the police announced that a 13th unexploded device was "discovered" (as you wish) in the police station...are undisputed facts.
• The 13th bomb being present in the trains is a disputed fact, the "islamists" autorship of the bombings is a disputed fact, the kind of explosive used in the bombings is a disputed fact...and so on.

Please read carefully the exquisite wording of JFK#Assassination. That´s the model of Wikipedia neutrality we should have in mind.

---

Southofwatford 13:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Like the description I have done for the beginning of this article, a clear objective description of known facts which does not enter into any of the disputed topics

---

Randroide 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC) OK. 13 bombs in the trains is a disputed topic. Please remove that reference and we can go ahead towards a "clean" version.

---

Southofwatford 15:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Suggest an alternative wording and we can discuss it - I still think mine is a reasonable and non-judgemental description because it does not affirm that the bomb was on the train. Obviously, any description that suggests the bomb was not on the train is going to fail the neutrality test

---

Obviously, you do not understand the meaning of "neutrality" within the context of Wikipedia. I will give you the exact reference.

The presence of the 13th bomb in the train has been disputed in reliable sources, as can be seen in the references you blanked.

I do not know what is your personal definition of "neutrality", but your private definition is NOT relevant here. You should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias. (bold added by me)

News published in a newspaper and reported in radio are "significant" by definition. Your deletion of that information is blanking and a villation of NPOV rules. If you want to locate "controversies" in a different article due to a page size problem, that´s fine, but in that case ALL controversial issues should be deleted from the main article. 13 bombs being present in the trains is a controversial issue. And so it is the "islamist" autorship.Randroide 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC) What a strange response, your new section on the 13th bomb was not NPOV by wiki standards, my standards or any other - it only contained conspiracy theory sources - don't try to mislead. It was removed because you imposed it without discussion or consensus - again don't try to mislead. This has nothing to do with my previous comment so I don't regard it as a response to that, the point I was trying to make concerned the sanitized description - not the contoversies section. If you are not interested in discussing parts of the article not affected by conspiracy theories we are going to have a problem reaching any kind of consensus. Without consensus this article cannot move forward. It is about time you accepted that - you have had too long a time thinking you can do more or less what you like without paying any regard to opinions different from your own.

Southofwatford 18:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Randriode, I will respond tomorrow morning on all the issues you have added below - no time today.

---

1.What you call "conspiracy theories" are not a malignant tumor that should be reluctantly contained like radioactive waste in a separate part of the article or, still better, in a different article entitled Moontalk about the Madrid bombings. Those "conspiracy theories" are an integral part of the explanations given by different media for the Madrid bombings. You can not dissociate "conspiracy theories" from the article, unless you also dissociate the Official conspiracy theory, i.e., the current government version about what happened.

---

Southofwatford 08:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Well everyone can have a different opinion on this issue - in the case of the Madrid bombings I certainly think the conspiracy theories are malignant because of the clear political motivations behind them. Accusing a government of organising the murder of 191 of its own citizens in order to win an election is fine if you produce positive evidence in favour of the assertion - hasn't happened in this case, all we get is a mixture of rumour, insinuation, inventive use of imagination, and an inversion of the burden of proof so that those who make the accusations are never under any obligation to supply proof. The different media you refer to are closer to each other with every passing week, there is no diversity here. Pedro Ramirez appears on Losantos' talk show, Losantos writes for Pedro's paper, Luis Del Pino writes on Losantos' web site - different media only in the strictest sense of the word. I do like the suggestion for the page name, although given the month the original event took place perhaps Mars would be more appropriate then the Moon.

---

Read the JFK assasination article to have an illustration of the future of the article about the Madrid bombings, because that is the result of the application of Wikipedia rules.

And, make no mistake about this, those rules will be applied in this article.

---

Southofwatford 09:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Randroide and the rules again - the only rule that is truly important at the moment for this article is the use of consensus to resolve disputes about the content. Until you accept that and sit down at the table of consensus for the first time, nothing else matters.

---

2.Southofwatford wrote: your new section on the 13th bomb was not NPOV by wiki standards it only contained conspiracy theory sources

Of course it only contains Un-Official conspiracy theories, because it´s in the "controversies" section. Your removal of that text is a flagrant violation of POV you should restore once a wording consensus is reached. You left in the text only the Official Conspiracy Theory stating the undoubted genuineness of the 13th bomb.

---

Southofwatford 09:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Interesting that you appear to believe that the controversies section is only for your theories, that was never my understanding, or anyone else's for that matter. You do not have your own personal section in this document, nobody does.

Your assertion that what remains in the document on the 13th bomb is not neutral is debatable, what is beyond any doubt is that you yourself have acknowledged it to be a correct factual statement. It forms part of a section that was written with the clear intent of removing controversy from the text, and contains a clear concession in that direction by simply stating the reported number of bombs. Don't try and compare my effort at a sanitized version, with which you have only found one small objection, with your completely biased attempt to introduce new material on the subject. The case against the accused is that the bomb was on the train, nowhere in the new section I introduced does it state that. Nor did I mention the explosives, the telephones or any other of the many details documented about this bomb. So no, Randroide, the case balancing your claims on the 13th bomb is not contained in the current article.

It's funny, I have the feeling that if I had written 12 bombs instead of 13 you would have raised no objection, even though stating that only 12 bombs were reported to have been found is factually incorrect. In any case, you cannot use your dispute on this statement as a pretext for introducing new biased material, you have been invited on more than one occasion to suggest alternative wording to remove the controversy. Consensus is not achieved via misrepresentation of what has been a genuine effort on my part to write a bare factual account of the bombings.

---

Remember: they must represent all significant views. It´s a non negotiable Wikipedia policy. You violated that policy with your blanking.

The text ''A total of thirteen improvised explosive devices were reported to have been placed on the trains only contains data taken from the Official conspiracy theory, so I could also ask from his deletion by the same convoluted reason you cite. Of course that this course of action you chose would lead us to a mutilated article. I do not want that, neither you should want that.

---

Southofwatford 09:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC) See my answer above, the text is not taken fron anyone's theory about the bombings, it is a simple factual statement and you have had the option to suggest alternative wording, an option you have freely chosen not to exercise.

---

PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE VERSION to the text about the dobts about the genuineness of the 13th bomb, please, but for the sake of the NPOV that material should be included in the main article (and re-located in the new "controversies" article if we can reach a consensus about what is a "clean" article).

I am waiting for you re-wording of the sourced material you deleted about the 13th bomb. No excuses of "that will be relocated in the new controversies page", please. That new page is still in a rather uncertain future, and the material you blanked should be reintegrated into the main article after a consensus wording is reached.

---

Southofwatford 09:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Don't hold your breath Randroide, if you want me to correct the evident bias of your new non-NPOV section then you will have to wait until I am ready to do so - which is not say that I am not prepared to do it, just that I will do it in my own time rather than on demand. In my opinion it is the responsibility of the person who introduces a new section to ensure that this section is NPOV - if the Black Pawns can't get their act together to write and propose NPOV material, then they are not in a position to demand that anyone else should do it. It is an organised campaign with the resources to do it. I am not going to be your editor, you are responsible for the balance of what gets proposed for addition under your name.

---

Thank you for the neatness and separation of you new postings.Randroide 18:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Southofwatford 09:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC) de nada - its a small example of something we could call cooperation

---

Randroide 18:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)The other side of the history you talked about?. Well, I made my research and I stumbled with this and this, and this, and this. These links, I think, should be added. Please feel free to write a proper NPOV digest of those articles, and to search for other references if you think it is neccesary. After that, we will discuss here your digest in the same way we will discuss my digest of "El Mundo" articles.

Of course that all this contradictory information is, as you properly said, mind boggling. Sorry, but that is the mind boggling nature of the Madrid bombings, and that nature should be reflected in the article.

This article about the crucial character oh the 13th bomb should also be added. The reader must known what we are talking about the keystone of all the Official Conspiracy Theory.

---

Southofwatford 09:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC) See my answer above, please feel free to wait until I have the time to write the other side of the story - which as you now effectively acknowledge is not included in the article or your proposed new section. That clarification at least is welcome. Personally, I have other priorities before talking about new sections that may or may not be added. This article is structurally a mess, and if you are going to block the editing process that I have begun while we argue about the difference between 12 or 13 bombs, then it is going to remain a mess. You cannot just focus on the sections that are of interest to you and then try to submit sections that contain only half the story. When I did the research for the new description that I added I found myself wondering with some amazement about how it was possible for so many changes to be introduced over several weeks by the conspiracy theorists without picking up any of the basic errors of fact contained in the previous version of the article. You have to start taking an interest in the article as a whole, and that means spending a bit less time with your favourite moontalk and a bit more time helping to sort out the evident deficiencies of the current version of this article. If you had adopted an approach based on seeking consensus rather than just introducing your pet topics, we would probably have already moved on from the 13th bomb debate and be engaged in working on the many other problems that this article has.

Think about your "priorities" before blanking sourced information, Southofwatford

Randroide 17:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)I can not "feel free" to wait while the sourced information you blanked out, is, still, blanked out.

Southofwatford wrote:Personally, I have other priorities before talking about new sections that may or may not be added.

You blanked out sourced information, Southofwatford. If you have time to do that, you should have time to discuss the blanked text. If you have other priorities, you should abstain to blank sourced data.

If you have time to blank information, you should also have time to write that "neutral" text we are searching for. If you do not write that text in a few days, I will write it.

My pet topics, as you call them, are an integral part of the sourced data available about the Madrid bombings. If you are not also interested in then, you are not interested neither in the bombings. Period.

---

Southofwatford 12:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC) It is a little bit tiring to have to keep repeating the same answers Randroide, but as you ignore most of the points I make on this issue I don’t really have any choice. The section you are referring to was inserted without any prior discussion or consensus, and that is the reason why I removed it. You carried out a disruptive edit of the work I had done on neutralizing the main account, instead of participating in that effort you simply saw it as an opportunity to introduce a controversial and completely biased new section. You knew the disputed nature of the article, and you acknowledged that material should not be introduced without discussing it first – yet you still seem to think you are the only one who is not bound by this.

I am not going to work at the moment on any new material; I think it is far more important to concentrate on sorting out the existing problems of this article, which is after all what I was doing until the moment you decided to try and wreck my efforts. It is the height of arrogance to think that you can add an entirely non NPOV half-finished section, and then just demand that I or any other user finish what you cannot be bothered to finish yourself. The fact that you have got away with this on previous occasions sets no precedent. You are entirely responsible for the content of any new sections that you propose for inclusion. Note the use of the word ‘’propose’’, prior discussion and consensus are required for inserting controversial new material into a disputed document – I accept that requirement and it is time that you did too. It is also time for you to demonstrate a little bit of interest in the article as a whole and not just the controversies – you made a proposal which I accepted and which has been supported by other users, that offers a way forward for the article. How many times does it need to be said, this article is not just about the conspiracy theories.

Proposed new section, including improvements suggested by Southofwatford

The new section is:

1. Relevant, due to the fact that it is about the key exhibit that leaded to the alleged perpetrators of the bombing.

2. Sourced.

3. NPOV, due to the fact that includes data from the newspaper that says that it´s genuineness is questionable and from the newspaper that says that the chain of custody is unbroken.

Any improvements, Southofwatford?. Any problem?. Please, be explicit in your answer. I hope I must not remind you about a Wikipedia policy about not avoiding questions.

NEW SECTION TEXT corrected according to suggestions made by SouthofwatforD:

The 13th bomb: The clues in the 13th bomb allowed the police to arrest the first allegued perpetrators on Saturday, 13 March, when three Moroccans (Jamal Zougam, Mohamed Chaoui and Mohamed Bekkaliand) and two Indian citizens were arrested .

The 13th bomb has been called "the bomb that dismounted the PP version about ETA" [22]

The 13th bomb is also known in spanish sources as "Mochila de Vallecas" (Backpack from Vallecas), due to the fact that its discovery was announced in the Vallecas Police Station in the morning of march 12th.

The 13th bomb validity as an exhibit is disputed. The next topics are under discussion:

• Wether the bomb was really in the trains. In the morning of the bombings, the trains were double checked by the EOD policemen to be sure that no unexploded devices were there. The 13th bomb was not found then. The only EOD policeman that had memories of handling a heavy (the 13th bomb weighed around 24 pounds) bag in that morning in El Pozo station asserted positively that the heavy bag he handled in the train station was not the bag of the 13th bomb.

• Wether that exhibit has a chain of custody.

• • A spanish police report concluded that the bomb could be manipulated by unidentified persons in Ifema ("pudo ser manipulada por personas no identificadas en el Ifema"). Ifema is the Madrid exhibition center where objects found in the trains were temporarily stored.
  • DNA from a unidentified male was found in the bag.

On the other hand, spanish policemen asserted that the chain of custody is unbroken [23]

[24] [25], and PP leader, Mariano Rajoy, asserted in march 2006 that he had no doubts about this exhibit [26].

Other issues, Southofwatford:

1. I write about the issues I choose. My choices are not your business, so, please, stop talking about if I write about such or such issue.

2. I had no obligation to insert the "El Pais" rebuttals. I made it as a sign of good faith.

3. If you want to stonewall my contributions (I hope that´s not the case, but that is what it seems), you picked the wrong user and the wrong article: You are only going to delay a pair of weeks the introduction of new data into the article, but new relevant, sourced and NPOV data will be added. Be sure about this.

4. If you have no time to discuss or to improve the proposed text, the text will be inserted as it is. Any new blanking will be treated and punished as pure vandalism. I hope we will not reach that situation.

Randroide 14:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A Response On The Proposed New Section

Southofwatford 07:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Randroide, the point you make about not avoiding questions is very relevant to my reply on this issue, because we have one very major question pending which affects the changes that you are proposing to make. There is still no resolution of the issue about where to put the controversies section, and while that issue is not resolved I am opposed to continual addition of any new information to this section; it is irrelevant to me whether this concerns bomb number 13 or bomb number 4567. The controversies section completely breaks the narrative flow of the article, it has no relationship with the sections preceding or following it and is an obstacle to the sensible reorganisation of the article. Its presence in the main article is acting as a magnet for vandals, and hindering any attempt to make the main account neutral. You proposed that we create a new page to take this section, I agreed to that proposal and acted upon it, and all other users who have expressed an opinion on the issue have also supported this proposal.

So let me suggest a solution which allows you to add your new material, and which also permits me to resume the process of removing controversy from the rest of the article. A situation which allows one user to edit at will while others are not able to do so is clearly not an acceptable one, so we need a proposal which allows both of us, and other users too, to work on the article. I therefore suggest that we create the new controversies page now, before adding any new information to this section, and before it becomes bigger than the rest of the article. As you can see from this proposal, I am not stonewalling anything – but working on the article with consensus requires an attitude of give and take from all parties involved. I believe that what I am proposing is a way forward for this article which will remove a lot of the heat from these discussions.

On the specific issue of your proposed section, it is clearly much more balanced than it was before, and that is welcome. Please don’t present such balance as a concession, it is surely the basis of making the article NPOV. There is an issue I want to check on the question of the inspection of the trains, I will come back on this early next week. When we have resolution of this and the general issue of the controversies section we can move on from this issue.

---

Randroide 08:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford wrote: I am opposed to continual addition of any new information to this section

That´s enough. Thank you for your frankness: You want to block that section, and you can not do that.

---

Southofwatford 08:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Randroide, do not try and distort what I am saying by quoting only part of what I wrote. It doesn't say much for the strength of your argument if you need to use such methods. I do not want to block the section, and that is clearly stated in my response. What I am asking for is an overall consensus on this section before adding new information.

---

I therefore suggest that we create the new controversies page now, before adding any new information

No, sir. You opposed my suggestions to "clean" the main article of controversial (i.e.: 13 bombs in the trains, "islamists" as perpetrators...) information, so you stopped the new article. I suggest you to work here until we reach an agreement. If you accept in the main article the text presented there, we can translate the "controversies" section. If not, no. Please read my proposed text.

---

Southofwatford 08:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Absolutely 100% untrue. You have been invited on repeated occasions to suggest an alternative wording for the issue of the 13th bomb, and for reasons which you have not (yet) shared with us you have freely chosen not to do so. The question of the perpetrators has not even been addressed in any of my changes, so I don't see how it can be an obstacle when I haven't even had the opportunity to suggest a wording. To say I stopped the article is nonsense.

Both of the points you make in your response are misrepresentations of the facts. We need a solution that allows us both to work on the article, you cannot claim the right to add new information while vetoing others from working on the article. Consensus, Randroide, you cannot avoid consensus.