Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 6

message: Even though it is labeled as a Train Project, it is a high importance subject despite not being important for train enthusiast; it's a high importance on the political scale even though there is no matching Project.
Note: Please keep this page archived when it passed 100K or so, because it's getting terribly long and pages of this site can cause problems with some browsers. Dr Debug (Talk) 13:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived and changed to High Importance

message: Randroide 09:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Juan Antonio Bardem filmó una parte de su última película Resultado Final en mi despacho del ABC verdadero"
You see: This man, the CEO of ABC during 15 years, calls his newspaper ("La Razón") "the genuine ABC".
My argumentum ad populum is totally relevant in this context. We are talking about influence in the conservative arena, and the fact is that a lot of conservative readers are migrating from ABC to La Razón, just as conservative listeners migrated from Antena 3 to the COPE in 1993.
A newspaper like ABC that loses a third of its readers in just a month is losing influence at high speed. 
Another example: Federico Jiménez Losantos accuses (talking about the 11-M) ABC of making "the dirty job of Polanco" Almost at the end.
You can disagree with FJL, but if you want to introduce opinions against FJL (and you have the right to do so), FJL´s opinions against his detractors are also legitimate.
I see as a legitimate demand to ask for some background to english readers of "Controversies about the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings" about who is who in spanish media, but you should accept the fact that accusations fly in both directions: From defenders of the Indictment to doubters of the Indictments, AND vice versa.
----
Southofwatford 11:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Emmanuelle primo 4.jpg Southofwatford says that "El Mundo" is engaged in a "circulation war" with "ABC".TOTAL NONSENSE: ABC buyers are highly conservative catholic folks, while "El Mundo" publishes pictures like this in the cover of its sunday supplement.
A very , very strange circulation war, indeed. Just two examples:
*Last sunday "El Mundo" sunday supplement included an interview with Silvia Krystel, with a picture of this woman taken from Emmanuelle (the famous bamboo chair picture, and that in the cover of the magazine) and a catalogue of sexual props from different "spicy" pictures, from the honey of 9½ Weeks to the bamboo chair from Emmanuelle.
*Today "El Mundo" includes an article about lesbian cinema .
And you suggest that "El Mundo" is engaged in a circulation war with the highly conservative traditional buyer of ABC. 
Gimme a break, please!!!. 
Southofwatford wrote: We do not need to dedicate much space to this in the main article
Y suggest to dedicate NO space to this issue in the main article. I suugest to leave the whole issue to Controversies about the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings.
Southofwatford wrote: It is also interesting because it emphasises the commercial motives behind the promoters of the conspiracy theories, they are making a lot of money out of this operation.
The defenders of the Indictment are also making a lot of money AND power: They won the 2004 elections thanks to the "Islamist" version of what happened.
----
Southofwatford 16:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Una vez más explicamos que la OJD mide ejemplares efectivamente distribuidos y vendidos. Los datos presentados en esta oportunidad corresponden a los periódicos con los que efectivamente se quedan los lectores, aunque no discrimina si es mediante venta en kiosco, por suscripciones o por distribución gratuita mediante promociones. Precisamente El Mundo reivindica la venta en kiosco como su principal baluarte frente a sus competidores, un número que no se ha dado a concoer en esta oportunidad por la OJD.
"El Mundo" simply counts the number of sold newspapers, discarding newspapers given as a gift.
Southwatford wrote: The simple fact is Randroide, despite all your noise and diversionary tactics...
If you regard the presentation of facts and arguments " noise and diversionary tactics", that´s your problem with logic and with reality, Southofwatford. 
Southwatford wrote: the other day in the printed edition of El Mundo the boasts on circulation figures contained on the front page made comparison with one, and only one, other newspaper - ABC. They weren't comparing themselves to El País, La Razon, or any other.
Provide me the exact date, please. I MUST go to the library to check that highly interesting piece of information.
Pedro J. was a political enemy of Aznar during the 2003 invasion of Iraq (just as he was with González during the 1991 Gulf war). Is a total nonsense to try to present him as a PP creature.
Southwatford wrote: On the question of money, nobody that I know of has sought to profit from the tragedy in the same way as the conspiracy theorists, with their carefully programmed publication of "revelations", and their books launched to coincide with this campaign.
Status: False. Zapatero won the 2004 elections thanks to the 11-M.
----
Southofwatford 07:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry, Wikipedia´s [[Neighborhood watch]] consumed my time  

message: Dear friends : I have been kindly requested by an administrator of the site to use my knowledge of this subject constructively. I think it is clear that we are completely stack and we cannot continue in the way we were following since Randroide has shown that he do not agree with the official version in anything at all. This is fully legitimate 
I have went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11-S article to see how there has been managed the controversy. I think that since that event is very similar and it was much more important in number of dead people and in international relevance it should be the model. What has been done there is to explain at length the official version and then there is an article were all the conspirationists are named one by one with a comment of his area of disagreement with the official version and links are provided to their own works that are considered primary sources. 
It is clear that El Mundo is doing Original research so it must be considered a primary source. Moreover, since is clearly -as Southofwatford has shown extensively and as it is common knowledge between present editors (3 to 4) - it is a partisan source (see Partisan Websites in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources), so it cannot be considered a secondary source as it is required for contibuting to the official version.
To divide the work following our areas of expertise, I suggest that Southofwatford, Larean01 and me work in the official version while Randroide makes the list of the conspirationist and the resumees of the position of each one.--Igor21 13:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Socios en Europa: Corriere della Sera, Libération, The Guardian.
ALL of them are "left wing". I see no wrong in being right-wing, but I do not like misrepresentations.
---- 
Southofwatford 10:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Randroide : There are many sources for this. The most easy to find is a front page article in magazine Epoca entitled "Comienza la guerra sucia" ("Dirty war starts"). There it explains a meeting between Gonzalez and Fraga in the country house of the latter. It says that shorly after Manglano, Casinello and Galindo have held some operational meetings and were destined to Basc Country. This article was published some weeks before the GAL started its actions. I do not have the exact date because I lost my archive in a change of house. Anyway this is not the issue here. I just named this to give a context to non-Spanish. Can you answer the other 100 things that I have said? can you start showing a reputable source (of the level of the three sugested by Durova) were the "investigations" of el Mundo are given the most little shadow of credibility? --83.35.222.27 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Randroide 19:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. You have no source. But you gave some clues. I will check that on the local library. I hope they´ll have a microfilmed collection from Epoca from 1983, if they have, all will be very easy: I must only check a maximum of 52 covers. You are accusing the PP (then AP) of collaboration in the creation in the GAL death squads. Those are MAJOR accusations, and should be checked. Sorry, but by now, my scarce time for you is totally absorbed in the checking process of your grave unsourced accusations.
OK Randroide, check it. In the front page there was the photograph of a special operations police with a gas mask. But please, delay you check for a better moment and before try to find a reputable source (of the level of the three sugested by Durova) were the "investigations" of el Mundo are given the most little shadow of credibility.--Igor21 20:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I will scrap the bottom of the barrel of my time to check your source. Thank you for the additional information. This is one of the best things for a Wikipedia user: You always learn new things. That Epoca reference is big news for me. Randroide 20:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's use an accepted model  

message: I don't see the relevance to debating whether a newspaper is conducting original research.  Any good newspaper employs investigative reporters.  The related Wikipedia policy forbids our own contributors from conducting original research, but this is because Wikipedia lacks the comprehensive oversight and and quality control that an established newspaper or other reliable source has.  It's also a mistake to term a publication of original research as a primary source.  By definition, a primary source is a resource of data upon which synthesis and conclusions may be drawn.  That synthesis constitutes a secondary source.  Either may be cited in a Wikipedia article, but a Wikipedia article should not depend entirely upon primary sources (because that would pretty much guarantee that the article would violate WP:NOR.
A reliable source's possible editorial bias does not constitute grounds for exclusion as an encyclopedic source.  Here's a quick (and possibly incomplete) bullet list for evaluating newspaper bias:
* Is it respected as a newspaper of record?
* Does it have a substantial circulation?
* Does it cover mainstream news events or does it usually focus on celebrity gossip and oddball stories?
* Has it won respected journalism awards?
* Can a Wikipedian's claim that the publication is biased be verified through reliable outside sources?
* If the publication is verifiably biased, one solution is to identify it as such in the article and cite one or more alternate or contrasting sources for balance.
* Overall, do the reliable sources for this subject divide along ideological or other identifiable lines?
As a United States reader, I know what bias to expect from a Wall Street Journal editorial or an article in The New Republic.  I don't know what biases prevail at the leading periodicals of Spain and I suspect few native English speakers do.  If the publication is something a reasonable person in Spain would examine, don't throw it out - fill me in. Durova 07:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside comments

message: *Newspaper of record Not absolutely necessary for encyclopedic merit.  The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are newspapers of record in New York City, but New York Newsday and New York Daily News are also mainstream newspapers that conduct respectable journalism.  The New York Post is tabloid and sensationalistic, but still covers mainstream stories and sometimes does good investigative work.  Generally the practice would be to cite a paper of record unless some other publication broke the story (or some significant aspect thereof).
*Bias Editorially, the Journal is pretty far to the right on the editorial page and neutral in its news reporting.  There doesn't seem to be much dispute about that characterization.  The Times aims at the center and often misses the mark to the left (how far to the left depends on who you ask), which brings us to the matter of perspective: people who are far-right tend to call the Times far-left; people who are in the center tend to call it centrist but a little bit left; people who are far-left call it not nearly progressive enough.  What matters in that type of situation, I'd say, is not what a particular set of Wikipedians think but what other leading periodicals have written on the subject, such as The Washington Post or The Boston Globe or Time Magazine.
I hope these analogies help because they're the best I can do.  Regards, Durova 17:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Socios en Europa: Corriere della Sera, Libération, The Guardian.
ALL of them are "left wing". I see no wrong in being right-wing, but I do not like misrepresentations.
---- 
Southofwatford 10:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Randroide : There are many sources for this. The most easy to find is a front page article in magazine Epoca entitled "Comienza la guerra sucia" ("Dirty war starts"). There it explains a meeting between Gonzalez and Fraga in the country house of the latter. It says that shorly after Manglano, Casinello and Galindo have held some operational meetings and were destined to Basc Country. This article was published some weeks before the GAL started its actions. I do not have the exact date because I lost my archive in a change of house. Anyway this is not the issue here. I just named this to give a context to non-Spanish. Can you answer the other 100 things that I have said? can you start showing a reputable source (of the level of the three sugested by Durova) were the "investigations" of el Mundo are given the most little shadow of credibility? --83.35.222.27 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Randroide 19:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. You have no source. But you gave some clues. I will check that on the local library. I hope they´ll have a microfilmed collection from Epoca from 1983, if they have, all will be very easy: I must only check a maximum of 52 covers. You are accusing the PP (then AP) of collaboration in the creation in the GAL death squads. Those are MAJOR accusations, and should be checked. Sorry, but by now, my scarce time for you is totally absorbed in the checking process of your grave unsourced accusations.
OK Randroide, check it. In the front page there was the photograph of a special operations police with a gas mask. But please, delay you check for a better moment and before try to find a reputable source (of the level of the three sugested by Durova) were the "investigations" of el Mundo are given the most little shadow of credibility.--Igor21 20:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I will scrap the bottom of the barrel of my time to check your source. Thank you for the additional information. This is one of the best things for a Wikipedia user: You always learn new things. That Epoca reference is big news for me. Randroide 20:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple of clarifications

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.  If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally.  Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 06:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these things yoy've said imply a free copyright. More importantly, it would be irresponsible, and Foundation policy, to link to such media that has no source or copyright status because we deem it likely that it is free. Our evaluation of the clips is unimportant. We cannot link to media which does not give a proper source and copyright status. These links should be removed. Dmcdevit·t 08:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Randroide 10:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhapse the spanish news outlets have copies of the vid on their website? ---J.S (t|c) 15:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Southofwatford 19:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Randroide 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: Randroide 17:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Sorry. You were right. I typed too fast before pondering the issue. You were talking about the youtube link that, yes, could be regarded as "homemade propaganda". It was good because gave you the unadulterated voice of Sánchez manzano, but the text was...uhmmm, non encyclopedic.
This section does NOT end here. Igor21 must solve this libelious mess.
----
Southofwatford 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've left a statement on the article talk page. DurovaCharge! 23:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Igor21 writes unsourced libels, and provides false sources 

message: Blogs fail WP:RS and WP:V for any purpose other than a biography of the blogger.  Per WP:BIO, other editors should delete unsourced or improperly sourced negative information about living persons ruthlessly.  Additionally, quotes in languages other than English should be accompanied by a line translation.  This article has several other issues including unencyclopedic tone. I recommend an article content WP:RFC. DurovaCharge! 23:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator blows referee whistle 

message: I think that the main desagreement we have is the correct status for El Mundo. In one hand is a newspaper that has a lot of daily sales in Spain. On the other hand his "investigations" regarding the bombings of 11-M 1) in some cases can be contradicted by the primary sources 2)are not reflected in world class media in spite of the fact that are about an issue worlwide famous an (Madrid bombings not being an islamist crime) and 3)the editor is known for his hate to the party on governement and has a long record of enemity with them.
All the other disagreements (were Spanish currently ruling party involved? was it a conspiration involving Spanish police to blame islamists? are faked the proofs of the indictment? is the indictmen a hanful of lies and the islamists in prison are innocents?) come from this one because this is the source of all the conspirationist theories. There are some minor media in Spain who give support to these investigations but they do not do any original findings.
So the question is, can El Mundo be considered a source in spite of the above stated facts?.  --Igor21 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC