Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 10

message: Obviously there is a lot of dispute regarding this section. I just re-read it, and frankly, it's way too POV. We're just giving the view of El Mundo and Cope, as though everything they say is proven and verified, when that's far from true. There is a request for mediation above, which I think is fine.  Meanwhile, I've temporarily added a POV template to the section, to be removed when the alternative sources and references that strongly oppose these views are added (ie, El Pais, but not only), and the majority (if not all) of the editors are satisfied about NPOV. Cheers Raystorm 12:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the only one claiming there is POV, especially since a request for mediation has been made. And one line from El Pais (Nevertheless, on July 17th 2006, Mr. Sánchez Manzano stated before the investigating judge that he had mistakenly used the word "nitroglycerine" because of its historical connection with dynamite [60]) hardly counters entire paragraphs about El Mundo and Cope. Cheers Raystorm 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Ps: We'll wait for user Southofwarford then, and then discuss the situation. Cheers Raystorm 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: You quote no sources, and sources are needed here.Randroide 08:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions over the type of explosive used in the bombs

message: Southofwatford 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Is Subject To Dispute 

message: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#2004_Madrid_train_bombings
To Southofwatford and Igor21: Now, please, go ahead with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. The issue is in your hands now. 
I am not going to retype diffs I typed weeks ago about this issue . 
To Raystorm: If you agree, we can continue checking my edits. We do not agree on our positions, but your ideas and suggestions are constructive and help to improve the article (see history), as I recognized in four edit summaries writing your username in my diff. 
Once the paperwork for the RfA is done, you can join the RfA if you want to do so, of course.
Randroide 08:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are other options we can take before resorting to RfA. Will you join such an effort? I believe you seek to improve this article, and I'm hoping you will accept to participate in a RfC or RfM with the most constructive of attitudes (as should be demanded of all editors). Is this reasonable to you? Cheers Raystorm 12:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment of the situation by an administrator 

message: ...move to the archive this discussion. I can not do it due to my "filtered" access.
The instruction for that job are on the file cabinet picture at the beginning of the tal page.
Thank you. Randroide 10:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone should... 

message: Note for oldtimers of this page: Sorry for the fastidiousness of the new section I created and the exhaustive nature of the cites. This section is intended as a quick reference for people new in the article (specially non-Spanish individuals), not only for us, the people trapped in the "egyptian curse" of this Talk Page.
Groups that voice doubts about the completeness of the Indictment (section created for the proper application of WP:Undue weight).
* The PP, the second spanish party (the first one in some vote intention polls nowadays -40% of the population-, 34.8% in other polls )
::But Vicente Martin Pujalte, of the conservative opposition party, said they were still unconvinced by the "insufficient conclusion". He said: "To say this is an autonomous cell who simply decided [to carry out the bombing] one morning seems a weak argument." He described the accused as "secondary actors" in the conspiracy. 
:::Other references (in Spanish): 
* Among many others:
:**The second Spanish Newspaper: El Mundo (Spain).
:::On May 16, the Madrid daily El Mundo published a remarkable editorial that draws upon the paper’s ongoing investigation and contains information potentially as explosive as the 3/11 attacks themselves... (read complete article) 
:**The Guardian:
:::...it is hard to envision anyone among those who died or those who have been arrested having enough planning skills and technical sophistication to have organised the highly synchronised attacks and having set up the sophisticated explosive devices that were detonated with cell phones. 
:**National Review
:::At worst, the information uncovered by El Mundo could mean that the deadly bombing was actually perpetrated with the complicity of the same Spanish police bomb squad, Tedax, that was subsequently charged with investigating the crime. 
* The Cadena COPE radio station, owned by the Spanish Catholic Church.
::This is not just a new chapter to the mysteries, the shady issues, the enigmas about 11-M ... We have reached an absolutely critical point ... All the "Sumario" [i.e., the explanation of facts provided by the Spanish Judiciary] is based upon Goma 2 ECO exploding in the trains ... If you can read there "nitroglicerine", the entire "Sumario" goes down (there is the original scientific police reports, missing from the "Sumario"). 
::::Excerpts taken from the first fifth of the COPE radio program COPE Audio file (Spanish) 5´35´´...//....7´42´´...//...10´54´´ 
*Spanish Police Union CEP ("Confederación Española de Policía"). The CEP also supports "Peones negros" demonstrations 
*AVT webpage Asociación de Víctimas del Terrorismo, Spanish Association of Victims of Terrorism. See Wikipedia article with excerpts from an AVT brochure.
*Part of the Spanish judiciary, that, as "El Pais", said, "share their conspirative delirium about the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings" (El País, October 4th 2006 Pay per view link). The quoted "conspirative delirium" line is "El País" Newspeak for the individals that do not swallow the Indictment lock, stock and barrel.
=== ADDENDA: Groups supporting the airtightness of the Indictment===
* Part of the Spanish Judiciary.
::The Spanish Judiciary, in words of Felipe González, sent to the jail to innocent individuals:
:::::¿Cómo ve las condenas contra el general Galindo y Julen Elgorriaga?
:::::Las veo injustas, porque tengo la convicción de que ellos no fueron los autores, ni de los secuestros, ni de los asesinatos. Más allá de la consideración sobre la inocencia o la culpabilidad, para mí, que soy un demócrata, lo que más me aterra es la quiebra del Estado de Derecho que pudiera suponer que unos inocentes estén en la cárcel. Prefiero que haya cuatro culpables en la calle que un inocente en prisión. Creo que no hay pruebas, y no critico a los jueces, porque creo que humanamente tienen una convicción, pero por eso no tienen derecho a condenar a unos inocentes.
* The PRISA group (El Pais and the Cadena SER, among others). 
:::Political leaning?: Broadcaster Cadena Ser, which is close to opposition Socialist Party...
:::A pair of blatant lies told by the Cadena SER:
:::**Spain's spy chief, Jorge Dezcallar, quickly denied a radio report that said intelligence agents were "99 per cent sure" that Islamic elements, not Basque separatists, were responsible. Broadcaster Cadena Ser, which is close to opposition Socialist Party, cited sources at the national CNI intelligence agency as saying agents thought a 10-15 member cell placed the bombs on the trains and may now have fled the country. But Dezcallar, a Government appointee, told the national news agency Efe that agents did not favour one line of investigation over another.
:::**The Government said autopsies conducted on victims showed no signs of suicide bombings - a hallmark of Islamic militants . 
:::::The lie about the "suicide bombers" was created by the SER:
::::: Cadena SER link 22.00 - 23.00 HORA 25.EL TERRORISTA SUICIDA. "Tres fuentes distintas de la lucha antiterrorista han confirmado a la Cadena SER que en el primer vagón del tren que estalló antes de llegar a Atocha, iba un terrorista suicida. Interior no lo confirma" Three different sources from the counter-terrorism unit confirmed to the Cadena SER that in the first railway coach there was a suicidal terrorist. Ministry of the Interior doest not confirm this claim''''
Randroide 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "weight" of the groups that <u>voice doubts about the completeness</u> of the Indictment

message: * Part of the Spanish Judiciary.
::The Spanish Judiciary, in words of Felipe González, sent to the jail to innocent individuals:
:::::¿Cómo ve las condenas contra el general Galindo y Julen Elgorriaga?
:::::Las veo injustas, porque tengo la convicción de que ellos no fueron los autores, ni de los secuestros, ni de los asesinatos. Más allá de la consideración sobre la inocencia o la culpabilidad, para mí, que soy un demócrata, lo que más me aterra es la quiebra del Estado de Derecho que pudiera suponer que unos inocentes estén en la cárcel. Prefiero que haya cuatro culpables en la calle que un inocente en prisión. Creo que no hay pruebas, y no critico a los jueces, porque creo que humanamente tienen una convicción, pero por eso no tienen derecho a condenar a unos inocentes.
* The PRISA group (El Pais and the Cadena SER, among others). 
:::Political leaning?: Broadcaster Cadena Ser, which is close to opposition Socialist Party...
:::A pair of blatant lies told by the Cadena SER:
:::**Spain's spy chief, Jorge Dezcallar, quickly denied a radio report that said intelligence agents were "99 per cent sure" that Islamic elements, not Basque separatists, were responsible. Broadcaster Cadena Ser, which is close to opposition Socialist Party, cited sources at the national CNI intelligence agency as saying agents thought a 10-15 member cell placed the bombs on the trains and may now have fled the country. But Dezcallar, a Government appointee, told the national news agency Efe that agents did not favour one line of investigation over another.
:::**The Government said autopsies conducted on victims showed no signs of suicide bombings - a hallmark of Islamic militants . 
:::::The lie about the "suicide bombers" was created by the SER:
::::: Cadena SER link 22.00 - 23.00 HORA 25.EL TERRORISTA SUICIDA. "Tres fuentes distintas de la lucha antiterrorista han confirmado a la Cadena SER que en el primer vagón del tren que estalló antes de llegar a Atocha, iba un terrorista suicida. Interior no lo confirma" Three different sources from the counter-terrorism unit confirmed to the Cadena SER that in the first railway coach there was a suicidal terrorist. Ministry of the Interior doest not confirm this claim''''
Randroide 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADDENDA: Groups supporting the airtightness of the Indictment

message: ::I am quite confident we can find many innaccuracies in reports from the immediate aftermath of the bombings - it would be quite normal for such things to happen. That does not mean that the news organisations behind such reports are lying'
If you really believe what you have written, Southofwatford, please... 
*...change the title of the section 2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Whether_the_conservative_government_lied.
*...rewrite the whole article under your premise "innaccuracies in reports from the immediate aftermath of the bombings...[]...That does not mean that the news organisations behind such reports are lying
Randroide 12:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southofwatford wrote: ''...we can find many innaccuracies in reports from the immediate aftermath of the bombings...'' 

message: To Igor21: I stumbled with several very interesting tidbits from your "serious source", the MIPT:
::::...despite counterterrorist successes by Spanish and French police and continued murders of suspected ETA members by the rightwing GAL 
::Your "serious source" was  (and is) totally clueless, Igor21: The GAL was not a rightwing group. The GAL was formed by the Spanish police, and there was a leftist PSOE government back then (See GAL or the final MIPT account about the GAL).
::They are still so clueless that they still classify the GAL as "Right-Wing Conservative" left column "quick facts"
Read also this (highly ironic, really):
::::The group’s first action was the kidnapping and killing of José Antonio Lasa and Jose Antonio Zabala in October 1983, both suspected members of ETA. Their bodies were not found until 1995, buried in quicklime and showing clear signs of torture.
::Dou you know how your "serious source" (Right-Wing Conservative GAL, oh my God) knew about Lasa and Zabala?. 
::Because El Mundo (Spain) made investigative journalism about the nasty issue (sorry, the original 1995 "El Mundo" scoop is too old to be online).
::Yup, "El Mundo" located the unidentified skeletons of Lasa and Zabala and made the DNA testing to identify them.
Another ironic issue:
::This is a link  provided as a reference by the   MIPT .
::Which source is mentioned in the MIPT sponsored link?. Yup, "El Mundo":
::::Various newspaper investigations have also added to the intrigue.The Spanish daily El Mundo reported that agents from the Spanish military intelligence organisation Cesid were involved in Gal.It claimed that Cesid agents kidnapped a beggar and two drug-addicts as medical guinea-pigs in preparation for the kidnapping of a leading Basque terrorist, and dubbed their kidnap plan Operation Mengele - after the Nazi doctor who carried out medical experiments on Jews, vagrants and other victims of the Holocaust.  
More incomplete data from the MIPT: 
::* List of GAL attacks listed by the MIPT .
::* Complete list of GAL attacks: Grupos_Antiterroristas_de_Liberaci%C3%B3n#Chronology_of_attacks.
::Your "serious source" must be taken "cum grano salis", Igor21.  In fact, if you rely only on the MIPT, you are going to get an incomplete picture, a very seriously incomplete one. As we are going to see...
IRONY ON
More interesting things I learned from the MIPT
* Santiago Brouard was never assasinated. Spanish newspapers told us otherwise, but, what the heck!, they should be wrong, because the MIPT says nothing about the issue! . Or maybe is wrong the MIPT? . Uh, Sorry, I disputed the undisputed authority, I must go to bed without dinner.
* Yoyes (killed September 10th 1986) was never killed: Shes not listed in a list of attacks  so exhaustive as to include the burning of a single car in Bilbao in 1986  . In fact Yoyes never existed: She´s not even listed by the MIPT . The guys who made a film about her (official webpage) are, obviously, conspiracy theorists, Google is also infected by "Conspiracy theorists" 
*The Hipercor 1987 attack  never took place . We thought that it was the worst ETA attack until 1987, but we are obviously wrong, because the MIPT knows nothing about the issue.
::This MIPT guys are so unreliable that they fail to list  the June 19th Hipercor attack (21 dead), but they list totally irrelevant   1987 attacks  with no casualties.
 
:Frankly, after seeing what this MIPT/RAND guys report as important (the burning of a single empty car in Bilbao in 1986 ) and what they fail to even mention (the assasination of 21 individuals in a single attack in 1987 -Hipercor-), I must conclude that, if the memos leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were of this quality, it´s quite easy to grasp why the United States was clueless during the Vietnam war.
If you are really serious (I hope you are not) about your undisputed authority claim , I suggest you to...
*...go to GAL and start "correcting" the article in the "light" provided by the MIPT, i.e, "The GAL was a Right-Wing Conservative group that...Source  ". 
*...or ask for the deletion of w:es:Dolores González Katarain. That woman is not listed by the MIPT, so she was not a former ETA leader killed by the group. All the opposing evidence is a "conspiracy theory" that must go faced with undisputed authority of the MIPT.
*...or, go to ETA#Under_democracy and delete all references to Hipercor. After all, is not listed by the MIPT, so that Hipercor attack must be some conspiracy theorists invention (sadly, It was not).
IRONY OFF
Have a nice day, Igor21.
Randroide 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...all major news organisations will have to be rejected – at some point or other they all make mistakes. Likewise, it doesn’t seem fair to suggest that they are not suitable because they have not written anything about subjects that are not related to the Madrid bombings.
* I never said that we must "reject" the MIPT. I only said that we must know that what the MIPT says is not set in stone, and that the absence of MIPT commentary aboput something means nothing.
* Yup, all media makes mistakes.
* The MIPT failed to see (vide supra examples I provided) the proverbial elephant in the bedroom in well documented and non disputed issues (it is well documented and non disputed that ETA killed 21 individuals in the Hipercor 1987 attack...etc). Moreover, the MIPT is not an sloppy general information newspaper, but pretends to be a "Terrorism Knowledge Base". It fails.
Randroide 08:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The MIPT reliability. A few pieces of information and some thoughts 

message: Hi everyone. As you can see, I've archived part of the discussion in this talkpage, up to January 4. The page was getting too long and those discussions had been inactive for a while. If, however, someone wants to activate the archive (number 8), and its discussions, that can be easily done. I did not archive more because I couldn't -discussions were still active (we do tend to discuss a lot here). ;)
On a sidenote, I'm sorry to say I'm going to be very busy for the next few days/weeks. One of my articles is going through a FA candidature right now, and as the principal contributor and nominator I need to address all the comments and suggested changes reviewers make there. So it may be a while before I drop by here again and follow the arguments exposed. This does not mean I'm abandonning this page or its discussions forever -simply, I have to put them on hold for a little while. If you need anything however (including help with the mediation process), feel free to contact me at my talkpage. I'll try to help as much as possible. If consensus is reached in the meanwhile regarding any aspect of the article, please count me in. Cheers and I hope to be back asap :) Raystorm 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive and going on hold for a bit

message: What a pity. This article is so stuffed with conspiranoic garbage that nobody can use it for an encyclopedic purpose. It's mere politics of the worst type.
The final trial will start soon. Hope we can make a good one when it finishes, putting the conspiranoic in a "criticism" or "controversial points of view" section, as in most other Wikipedia articles, but not intermixed with the whole text, rendering it unusable as it is now.
MaeseLeon 00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure?. Could you please point to the conspiranoic garbage?. I reviewed the article line by line and I found no such a thing. Paste blocks of text, please. If there is any "conspiranoic garbage" I missed, it should be removed. Thank you. Randroide 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MaeseLeon : Before speaking with Randrodide check his historial and then decide if is worthwile or not.--Igor21 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is currently useless 

message: A lot of this article lacks the fundamentals of good English grammar and sentence structure. I'm going through a lot of it to correct. Section 3.2 had already been called out as needing significant re-wording, which I completed. The first paragraph was duplicative of earlier parts and highly irrelevant to its section, as it discussed how those believed responsible were killed in later police confrontations. Hopefully you all find my edits appropriate thus far. I'm about halfway through and will be continuing edits over the course of this week. akronpow 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not looking for "English" English or "American" English...I'm looking for consistent English. If there's "organization" in one place, there shouldn't be "organisation" elsewhere. And I really hope you don't claim this article was previously written in any proper or consistent form of English, it was really, really bad. akronpow 17:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it's not well written, the quality of writing more or less matches the quality of the content - but changing sceptical to skeptical doesn't really change that. The simple fact is that the article is subject to a prolonged dispute which when it finally gets resolved will permit substantial rewriting and correction of grammar. Given the nature of that dispute I believe its better to leave the article more or less as it is until resolution is achieved. Deletion of content should be discussed first. Southofwatford 18:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Akronpow is making just that. Thank you very much, Akronpow.
I only have a misgiving, Akronpow: Could you please explain the removal of text in this edit?  . Randroide 08:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Before requesting formal mediation, parties should have made an attempt at some form of informal resolution; disputes that have not attempted informal resolution may be rejected with the direction to attempt informal resolution. Parties may find Requests for Comment or the Mediation Cabal useful steps prior to formal mediation. WP:RFM
We matured and mellowed in the last months. I think that RfC is the way to go. Randroide 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant grammar and sentence structure editing needed 

message: The current state of the article is just discouraging. After a quick look on the talk page, I hope the problem doesn't arise from only one person. If it is the case, they are bureaucratic solutions, although tiring and not my cup of tea. I created a subsection for the trial, I was surprised that it wasn't there. A few comments from a quick overview:
*The "Reactions" subsection might be better in the "Aftermaths" article — and I don't understand why the "arrest" subsection is in the Aftermath article. 
*For a start in trying to solve the POV problem, and for the sanity of you guys and to not totally deter foreign readers, you might want to try to agree in a clear-cut, non-controversial introduction. 
*El Mundo. Beside, honestly I did not follow the matter, and I don't know to which extent El Mundo participated in this campaign, but it is first of all wrong to say that this newspaper has no credibility at all (quite to the contrary, although it may have engaged on this issue in a loosing battle), and second it is Wikipedia that lose credibility in judging the value and the point of view of an entire newspaper (several tens of people with various and contradictory ideas) on a sole article. In particular, Pedro J. Ramírez can claim what he want, he is "only" director of the newspaper. Director can sometimes pit themselves against all their employees (i.e. see debate in Libération and Charlie Hebdo concerning the treating of the Treaty for a European Constitution). All in all, in accordance with WP:CS, rather than putting an El Mundo article to back-up claims that it support this campaign (which it obviously does to some extent - the question is, for a person such as me who is foreign to the question but kind of knew that El Mundo supported this controversial thesis - to which extent?), we need (Wikipedians :) to find another, exterior source, which criticizes (or applaudes - two are even better) El Mundo for engaging in this campaign. It would be also very interesting to have some internal testimony from El Mundo reporters (again, see the French newspapers hereabove).
*Tiny detail: note 49 mix English & French. 
*Subsection on "explosives": we can read this: "That day, El Mundo claimed that the news agencies EFE and Europa Press and the newspapers Gara and ABC also cited the presence of Nitroglycerine. ABC article cited by "El Mundo" [75]. ABC article mentioning the presence of Nitroglycerine, cited by "El Mundo" [76]." This is not a way to write & present things. Maybe: "That day, El Mundo claimed that ABC had refered to nitroglycerine in its XX 2006 article [76] and XY 2006 article [77]."
*"Muslim extremists." I think this ought to be replaced either by Islamists or by Muslim fundamentalists. This might sound strange, but it is my understanding that "Muslim" refers to faith, whereas "Islamism" is a theological-political ideology. "Fundamentalism", be it Muslim, Christian or New Age deep ecology, refers to the complete refusal of secularism and of distinction between the political & the religious sphere. So, if you follow my reasoning, "extremist" is a word that belong to the political field, and "Muslim" to the religious, personal, field. I could go on arguing the point to the absurd, limit-like treshold, where a "Muslim extremist" would be in fact someone who took his faith really "too seriously" and would be obsessed with it (but without necessarily taking it out on the political field). I said I could argue until this absurd threshold, don't jump on me! All in all, I think the most important thing is trying to have the important facts in the introduction, if someone dedicates time to make a proposal, I'm sure we could then submit it to some kind of vote (i.e. see the introduction of Hamas, which, personally, many people, including me, disagree with, but which has stayed the same for a very long time, because there is some informal voting blocking any attempt to change it. While this discourage people like me who disagree with it (mainly because of lack of contextual reasons), it has the merit of being more than two sentences and of being stable). Que no se desesperan, ¡venga! Tazmaniacs 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Igor21 wrote: The controversy is so absurd that we need RFC to say that was done by islamists
*We never had a RfC.
*The article already says that Islamists made it: The perpetrators were local Islamic extremists... (Introduction)
Randroide 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The RFC, and anything else, should be put on hold until we resolve the new problem created by Randriode's actions on Friday. I think we need some sort of informal mediation to clarify these disagreements on  Wikipedia policies and specifically on whether it is legitmate for a single user to ignore objections from editors involved in a dispute. Southofwatford 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFC, and anything else, should be put on hold until we resolve the new problem created by Randriode's actions on Friday.
Yeah, Southofwatford, the RfC and the article frozen until you get the basic fact (explained by me to you weeks ago) that unsourced affirmations must go (this is the "crime" I commited last fryday).
Not in my life.Randroide 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Problem To Resolve 

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

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

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

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

message: === Statement by Randroide ===
In the article 2004 Madrid train bombings the Spanish Judiciary should be, of course, a source, but NOT the "Ultimate source", for reasons that I am going to make clear.
To understand what kind of country Spain is and what kind of Juciciary and Political class Spain has, please read this lines about the Spanish Judiciary by former president Felipe González Márquez:
::INTERVIEWER How do you see the sentences against general Galindo and Julen Elgorriaga? 
::FELIPE GONZÁLEZ I see them as unjust, because I am convinced that they were not the perpetrators, neither of the kidnappings, nor of the murders...[]...I believe that there is no proof, and I don't criticize the judges, because I believe that, being human, they have a conviction, but they do not have the right to condemn innocent people because of that." Third party translation
:::ORIGINAL IN SPANISH, AND SOURCE:
::::¿Cómo ve las condenas contra el general Galindo y Julen Elgorriaga?
::::Las veo injustas, porque tengo la convicción de que ellos no fueron los autores, ni de los secuestros, ni de los asesinatos...[]...Creo que no hay pruebas, y no critico a los jueces, porque creo que humanamente tienen una convicción, pero por eso no tienen derecho a condenar a unos inocentes.  
Randroide 11:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to suggest that we have to reject a 3 year judicial investigation involving hundreds of investigators on the basis that Felipe Gonzalez was not happy with a decision in another case that has absolutely nothing to do with the train bombings is simply absurd. It’s like handing over our assessment of the Italian judicial system to Silvio Berlusconi. In the end almost all judicial systems have flaws and there are miscarriages of justice, again that does not provide us with any factual reasons for discarding the judicial investigation into the Madrid bombings, it’s more of an attempt at guilt by association. I do not reject the conspiracy theories about the bombings because I think the Spanish judicial system is wonderful, I have been very critical of it in several cases. Ironically, those who attempt to discredit the investigation into the Madrid bombings are less critical of the same judicial system when it produces a result more satisfactory for their political agenda. I have no doubt that a determined conspiracy theorist could find enough holes in many of the cases convicting ETA members to sustain a conspiracy theory; none of which means that the justice system has acted incorrectly in those cases. In any case we have a trial in progress which is going to test the assertions of that investigation; the conspiracy theories would not survive the same examination. Southofwatford 11:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request For Comment: How much weight shall the community assign to the Spanish Judiciary in 2004 Madrid train bombings

message: In the article 2004 Madrid train bombings the Spanish Judiciary should be, of course, a source, but NOT the "Ultimate source", for reasons that I am going to make clear.
To understand what kind of country Spain is and what kind of Juciciary and Political class Spain has, please read this lines about the Spanish Judiciary by former president Felipe González Márquez:
::INTERVIEWER How do you see the sentences against general Galindo and Julen Elgorriaga? 
::FELIPE GONZÁLEZ I see them as unjust, because I am convinced that they were not the perpetrators, neither of the kidnappings, nor of the murders...[]...I believe that there is no proof, and I don't criticize the judges, because I believe that, being human, they have a conviction, but they do not have the right to condemn innocent people because of that." Third party translation
:::ORIGINAL IN SPANISH, AND SOURCE:
::::¿Cómo ve las condenas contra el general Galindo y Julen Elgorriaga?
::::Las veo injustas, porque tengo la convicción de que ellos no fueron los autores, ni de los secuestros, ni de los asesinatos...[]...Creo que no hay pruebas, y no critico a los jueces, porque creo que humanamente tienen una convicción, pero por eso no tienen derecho a condenar a unos inocentes.  
Randroide 11:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to suggest that we have to reject a 3 year judicial investigation involving hundreds of investigators on the basis that Felipe Gonzalez was not happy with a decision in another case that has absolutely nothing to do with the train bombings is simply absurd. It’s like handing over our assessment of the Italian judicial system to Silvio Berlusconi. In the end almost all judicial systems have flaws and there are miscarriages of justice, again that does not provide us with any factual reasons for discarding the judicial investigation into the Madrid bombings, it’s more of an attempt at guilt by association. I do not reject the conspiracy theories about the bombings because I think the Spanish judicial system is wonderful, I have been very critical of it in several cases. Ironically, those who attempt to discredit the investigation into the Madrid bombings are less critical of the same judicial system when it produces a result more satisfactory for their political agenda. I have no doubt that a determined conspiracy theorist could find enough holes in many of the cases convicting ETA members to sustain a conspiracy theory; none of which means that the justice system has acted incorrectly in those cases. In any case we have a trial in progress which is going to test the assertions of that investigation; the conspiracy theories would not survive the same examination. Southofwatford 11:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Randroide 

message: === Statement by Randroide ===
PRISA owned SER Radio station told a lie in the crucial (for the March 14 election outcome) March 11th day:
Randroide 11:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request For Comment: How much weight shall the community assign to the [[PRISA]] owned media in 2004 Madrid train bombings

message: PRISA owned SER Radio station told a lie in the crucial (for the March 14 election outcome) March 11th day:
Randroide 11:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Randroide 

message: More than split the article, my idea is doing the same as has been done in 9/11 : explain what happened as is understood by all the media and official sources and then write a sub-article where is explained why there are conspiracy theories and why exist in this case. However another idea would be to give to conspiraticist people space (as much as they want) to develop their ideas and let them put whatever they want without caring very much. This is bad but is even worst to try to create a third version that were a mix of the truth (or what main sources think as truth) and El Mundo ideas. The narrative of the official version and the narrative of the conspirationist theories are uncompatible  and must not be mixed or intemingled.--Igor21 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with Southofwatford's proposal; something similar to how the 9/11 article is set up. The article should be about the generally accepted narrative, with just a short bit about the conspiracy theories, with a link to the main article. Parsecboy 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request For Comment: Appropriate point to split article and guidelines for editors 

message: I'm not very knowledgeable about this issue, so could someone give a quick rundown of the sides for people like me, who would like to help work towards a consensus? Thanks in advance. Parsecboy 17:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at my summary for the ArbCom committee. ArbCom rejected it because RfC hadn't been formally attempted. . --Otheus 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I don't think an article about these bombings should devote so much space to a chronology of rumours and speculations that appeared in the press and the Spanish parliament at the time. I would reduce that material to a small section, with links to a selection of press pieces from back then, and leave it at that.
LDH 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Press stuff