Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 1

message: The BBC is reporting that four bombs exploded on the street outside Atocha (presumably this is Calle Téllez); the article says that they exploded on a train on Calle Téllez. Which is correct? -- ChrisO 15:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Train by Calle Téllez. which is near Atocha Station. Pfortuny 15:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Both are correct: it exploded in a train on Calle Téllez, which is next to Atocha. Sabbut 15:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: We don't generally translate non-English street names. See, for instance, Rue de Rivoli or Unter den Linden. -- ChrisO 18:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calle Téllez 

message: FWIW see this timeline if it is of interest. Pfortuny 15:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Why is this event not on the main page already, BTW? Miguel 15:33, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC) +
It is. Evercat 15:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page 

message: Is it worth adding the worldwide condemnation of this attack? A list of people who have spoken can be found at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-11-spain-world-reax_x.htm. Perhaps not that important? Side-note: Jack Straw used the phrase "shoulder to shoulder", Blair said the same to Bush on 9/11, some press picking up on this, and sure is not a co-incidence Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so.  We should start giving this article sections.  Responsibility, or some such verbage should be in its own section (as it will grow larger over time as an investigation proceeds) and World Reaction should be given its own section as well. RadicalBender 16:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  World reaction 

message: Include information from http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/8162057.htm?  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible source

message: From the Washington Post:
:The Aznar government's support for the Iraq war was deeply unpopular among citizens, with polls indicating that 90 percent of the population was against it. Spain's involvement in Iraq had become a campaign issue, with the opposition Socialist Party promising to reverse the policy and bring troops home.
:While Spain's close ties to the Bush administration over Iraq have received little approval, its stance against ETA has been highly popular. The candidate of the governing Popular Party, Mariano Rajoy, has promised to continue the policy pursued by Aznar, who is stepping down after eight years in power. Rajoy's campaign had tacitly accused his Socialist challenger, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, of being softer on terrorism.
I don't know whether )or where) this belongs in the article, but I personally agree with this analysis. Interestingly, I haven't found such a clear statement of this in the Spanish commentary, let alone news coverage. Miguel 04:54, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)
I have expanded the articles on Rajoy and R Zapatero and have mentioned this aspect in both articles. I don't think politics belong in this article. They can be discussed at Spanish legislative election, 2004. Adam 05:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political implications 

message: In the internet but also the news agencie Agence_France-Presse  is spreading a hoax that the mach 11th 2004 would have been 911 days after the September_11,_2001_attacks. This is worng. 2004 is a Leap_year so the March 11th 2004 has been 912 days after the WTC attacks.
:::What do you think? RobertMichel 20:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I feared that Hoax will be edited into error, error into claim and latly claim into proof. Why does I put the wrong number game of AFP into this artikel? I want to stress that all mysterious number games are demagogue and more hoax than proofs. It would be totaly different when it is proof that both attacks are from the same group and it claims it used 911 days inbetween this dates to have a more mystic media report. Everythink else is like reading in coffee-grounds. I don`t what to read in coffe-grounds, I want to stress that this is not poof, nor a claim. So please leave it as hoax or remove it. AFAIK is Wikipedia not for speculations. RobertMichel 23:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, 3/11/04 is two and a half years after 9/11/01. Maybe just coincidence...I certainly wouldn't suggest that terrorist attacks will only occur on the 11th of the month. }:-( Lee M 20:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Hoax: something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage -- THIS IS NOT A HOAX, JUST AN ERROR --Cantus 00:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax: 911 days after   September 9th 2001 

message: What is the source for the TNT information? AFAIK is it unknown which expolsive was used.rob
:It is not titadine see here. (Spanish) Pfortuny 17:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNT? 

message: What is the source and licenze of these pictures? Sorry, but this photo are only a Copy&Paste one and not one to use with GNU/FDL. Please try to find a free photo, for example of demonstrations against terrorism/barbarismus of today. rob
Is it possible to resize this picture for insertion in the demonstrations section? Miguel 18:45, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)
:Just use the Extended Image Syntax.  RadicalBender 20:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture and GNU-FDL 

message: For Miguel especially. [http:www.elmundo.es here] they say ETA denies authorship. Pfortuny 17:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gracias :-) -- Arne List 23:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look out for ETA 

message: The UEFA refused to allow Spanish football teams to suspend their matches scheduled for 11 and 12 March, and the teams are complying with this decision.
Is this correct? It was reported before the matches here (in the UK) that the games were continuing as scheduled at the insistence of the Spanish Government, who did not wish to allow the terrorists to be seen to have succeeded in disrupting normal events. -- Arwel 19:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Football Club Barcelona asked for their match on March 11 to be delayed but it was not allowed (source here for example. However, the Spanish Gv't has insisted on normality. Pfortuny 20:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand it from my poor Spanish and the machine translation, the decision was jointly made by UEFA, the Spanish Government, and the (Spanish?) Football Federation, so as it is at the moment the article reads as rather too critical of UEFA. -- Arwel 21:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I wrote it in a rush. Would you mind fixing it? Thanks. Pfortuny 21:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Arwel 21:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football 

message: There seems to be a problem with the tally of bombs.
By my count, this article mentions:
*3 bombs that exploded on the Atocha train
*4 bombs that exploded on the Tellez train
*2 bombs that did not explode on the Tellez train
*2 bombs that exploded on the El Pozo train
*1 bomb that exploded on the Sta Eugenia train
*2 bombs that did not explode in cars outside Atocha
*1 bomb that did not explode in a car outside El Pozo
For a total of 15 bombs, of which 3 did not explode. Of those, 11 bombs targeted Atocha station (the Atocha train, the Tellez train, and the car bombs). 9 of these were on trains, of which 7 exploded. 
However, the article says there were 13 bombs, and that 6 targeted Atocha station. What am I missing? Montrealais
Maybe you can check the timeline at El Mundo (see external links) and fix this. I have been noticing the inconsistencies, too. Miguel 20:05, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)
Only 3 explosions at Tellez. I'll try to fix it. From El mundo. Pfortuny 20:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a problem.  Just trying to direct traffic on this page is all.  :-)  RadicalBender 20:31, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many bombs? 

message: Vice-president Javier Arenas defended...  -- I'm a little confused about the position occupied by this person. Is he J-M Aznar's deputy? The Spanish "President of the Government" title has caused confusion before (in the White House, I believe!) and should be translated into English as Prime Minister. Similarly, if Sr Arenas is Aznar's deputy, then he should be described as Deputy Prime Minister. -- Arwel 03:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, of course, this is your wikipedia, it is not for us to speak on these matters.  But at last I saw why I have not been understanding your position.  It is that 'President' in English is very rarely used, so you are quick to expect some meanings from the word.  For most cases where we would use 'Presidente', you would use 'Chairman' instead.  So for us it is very unspecific and needs to be qualified unless the context is very well understood.  So this only comes to show how limited our mastery of English really is, even though we may delude ourselves into thinking otherwise at times. eiaccb 09:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, during the second spanish republic (1931-1936), we had Presidente de la Republica and Presidente del Gobierno. The "cabinet" is never called gabinete, but variously consejo de ministros (the name of their weekly Friday meeting), gobierno and ejecutivo. Eiaccb is right about President translating more properly as chairman. Although there is an argument to be made for using the most common translation in the English-speaking press, to trust the judgement of foreign press on things like this is like judging their reporting of scientific discoveries. Miguel 17:47, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
May I propose you to consider using the term Minister President, which would not confuse readers limited to the English language, but have the advantage of being closer to the original?--212.181.86.76 22:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title translation 

message: Also this article is getting too long. I propose that this article be confined to the events of March 11, and that everything else be put in a new article, Aftermath of the March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks. Adam 08:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article is too long, and full of stuff that acts more like "meat on the bone" (like demonstrations, reactions etc.). I say go for it :) --Vikingstad 08:28, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, I uploaded a new one. Is it any better? --Vikingstad 08:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking up the article? 

message: You people are too enthusiastic. Not every single fact you read in the news belongs here -- only significant ones. Encyclopedia articles are not narratives. They are only supposed to state the significance of things. --Jiang 09:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jiang's opinion of article 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3509212.stm "Spanish authorities have arrested five suspects...  the arrested men were three Moroccans and two Indians."  FYI. –Hajor 19:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrests 

message: I just removed this from the objectives section of the infobox:
:To pressure US-allied to end their alliance against Islamic countries (the war on terrorism).
This objective presupposes that ETA were not responsible, so far they haven't been ruled out.  It can go back in if and when we confirm that it was an Islamic fundamentalist group to blame.  fabiform | talk 23:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: This page is now apparently a copyvio from the Associated Press. ie see an example AP-sourced website at:  --Evercat 00:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the info has been edited out. Further wording may be welcomed to distance it from the original AP article. The facts are important to keep though. --Cantus 00:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: TOO MANY DETAILS, AND INFO PRESENTED WHICH HAS NOT EVEN BEING FULLY EXPLAINED UNTIL FURTHER DOWN
:The Spanish government considers ETA the most likely culprit, although it has not ruled out other possibilities. Basque separatists, some international sources, and a van found outside the train station in Alcalá de Henares point to al-Qaida. There have been claims (so far unconfirmed) that a previously unknown Islamic fundamentalist group calling itself the Lions of al-Mufridun has claimed responsibility, while the London Arabic language newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi on March 11 reported receiving a communication purporting to claim responsibility on behalf of an al-Qaida faction. On March 12, the Basque newspaper Gara and Basque public TV Euskal Telebista received communications from ETA denying any involvement in the attacks.
:Around 9 pm CET on Saturday, March 13, it became known that a video tape was found in Madrid in which Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks "in response for the crimes of Bush and his allies" . Radio station Cadena SER accuses the government of knowing about the tape since 11 am and lying about it, and also of hiding a similar audio tape found in the van at El Pozo.
I have moved the paragraphs above from the intro, where they were commented out. It is always better to move sections to Talk pages than commenting them out in the source. Miguel 02:28, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)
:I'm not suggesting this info be removed, I just think it should be more carefully edited and rewritten, in order to give a global view of the aftermath of the event. In its current form it is poor. If you see the 9/11 page, the aftermath intro encompasses info from several months after the event. With time, and depending on how events unfold, the above info will change to something probably completely different. -- Cantus 03:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commented-out passage from intro 

message: I removed the current event message. Everyone knows this is a current event. It adds nothing to the article except to say "Don't trust this article" and is there for the benefit of writers, not our readers. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{msg:current}}</nowiki>

message: I am now going to embark on dividing the article in two, as discussed above. Please be patient. Adam 09:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article division