Talk:Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings

message: The article claims:
:It was the first time a government that backed the Iraq war has been voted out of office.
Was this the first election involving a government backing the Iraq war? Is this one government voted out of office out of many, or one out of one so far? Miguel 17:08, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)
:I think this was the first time a government which took part in the occupation of Iraq faced re-election. The US, UK, Australia, Poland have not had elections since last April. Adam 14:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post war election 

message: I do not like the title of this page.  It should be changed to something other than "Responses to...".  "Responses" does not reflect the content of the article.  Maybe "Aftermath" is more suitable.  dave 21:43, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree on this. Aftermath would be better, and would include *everything* that happens after the actual March 11 attack. --Vikingstad 23:50, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
::It's also funny that the main Madrid attacks article has a long section called "Reactions".  Reactions is almost a synonym of Responses I think...  dave 00:21, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
:::I got rid of the old page and changed all links to this one Aftermath of...
:::It should also be in European date format, i.e., "Aftermath of the 11 March, 2004 Madrid attacks" - MPF 02:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title

message: Based on evidence in Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_attacks (see Usage figures), I believe the name of this article should be changed (yet again) to Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings, to reflect more accurately on how people identify the events. The more vague term attacks is used more correctly in the 9/11 article, because of the nature of those events. --Cantus 22:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Move page

message: I have changed the status of this article to disputed, not because of anything in particular that is happening here, more because of disputes over the content of the main article 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings. There is an editing process going on with this main article that could easily affect the content of this one, and I would like to see all changes made on either article to be done by discussion and consensus. Apart from this 'light' level of protection I have made no changes here. Southofwatford 21:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edition Of Main Account 

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

message: What is totally disputed here?  I am not seeing the issue and can't make out what you are talking about above.  Can someone explain this to me?--BirgitteSB 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't say anything about this.  What is totally disputed in the current article?  Or are you saying that the omission of these ideas is what is disputed?--BirgitteSB 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It took several months to erase conspirationism from the text of this and other related articles.  Conspirationists think that their disagreement with the current text makes the article "totally disputed". For me the "disputed" template should be removed but then probably these guys will appear again with their fringe ideas and their reckless insistence. --Igor21 16:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think about all the hidden text?--BirgitteSB 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mainly good but there are some conspirationist details. I think we should contact Southofwatford who was the one who started the article. I do not know why all this text is hidden. Perhaps it was agree with the main conspirationist -Randroide- as part of some exchange. --Igor21 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There was no agreement to hide anything - Randroide used the absence of sources in some parts of it as a pretext for hiding text which didn't fit with his political viewpoint. As an example of how to misuse Wikipedia guidelines to achieve personal objectives it's almost perfect. Southofwatford 09:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So perhaps now we can un-hidden all this, once there is a judiciary resolution that backs up the text?--Igor21 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's possible to work on it without being involved in endless circular disagreements with conspiracy theorists then I'm happy to help, otherwise life is just too short. Southofwatford 11:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Totally disputed}} ? 

message: Not a word about Spain withdrawing their troops from Iraq as a consequence? On 18 April, 2004 "Spain's new prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has given orders for Spanish troops in Iraq to be brought home in "as short a time as possible". (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3637523.stm
and stating so already in March:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3518826.stm
Nunamiut (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Spains withdrawal from Iraq in ANY of the articles on Spains modern history