Wikipedia

Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 4

< Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Larean01 in topic A Response On The Proposed New Section
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

References

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago21 comments3 people in discussion

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: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

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 [1].
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. [2] [3]
    • 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.[4]


–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

Latest comment: 18 years ago22 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 [7].
The 13th bomb has been called "the bomb that dismounted the PP version about ETA" [8]
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. [9] [10]
    • 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.[11]
On the other hand, spanish policemen asserted that the chain of custody is unbroken [12]

[13] [14], and PP leader, Mariano Rajoy, asserted in march 2006 that he had no doubts about this exhibit [15].

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

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 wrote: 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.

Randroide 10:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford wrote: You have been invited on repeated occasions to suggest an alternative wording for the issue of the 13th bomb

...and in repeated occasions I stated my position. For the sake of convenience I will repeat here my positions on this issue:

1. I accepted your wording: "Identified" instead of "Appeared" in the Vallecas Police Station, but mention should be made to the fact that no inventory of objects was made in the train station. I circunvented this conundrum with this wording: "its discovery was announced in the Vallecas Police Station". Any suggestions, Southofwatford?.

2. All references to the 13th bomb in the trains should be traslated to the proposed new article "Controversies about 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings". This is a sine qua non for the creation of that article: If there is an article about "controversies", all controversial data should be removed to that article.

Southofwatford wrote: for reasons which you have not (yet) shared with us you have freely chosen not to do so

Status: Untrue, as anyone checking the discussion can see.

Southofwatford wrote: 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.

The solution: All controversial issues should be moved to the "Controversies" new article. The old main article, I propose, should look more or less like the article I presented in the Atelier from this page.

You are accusing me of "vetoing" you, Southofwatford: Please tell us when I blanked information added by you.

And, please, add your responses beneath the line, Southofwatford. Please stop disrupting my messages: It is against Wikipedia policies. Thank you.

Southofwatford 10:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to disrupt any messages - merely responding point by point...but as you wish.

I am happy to change the wording on the 13th bomb so that it makes clear that it was identified as such in the police station - I think that will remove that issue? Can I take it from your latest response that you are accepting the proposal to create the controversies page now?

I don't understand what you mean on the look of the main article, where do I find this?

vetoing = blanking? No, but then I never said it did.

Please note: from 15:00 today I am away from home until Monday evening and won't be able to respond on anything during that time.

Suggested new wording: "10 improvised explosive devices exploded on the trains, and a further 2 unexploded devices were destroyed in controlled explosions by the bomb disposal teams. A thirteenth device was identified in the early hours of the following morning amongst personal effects being temporarily stored in a police station in the district of Vallecas."

Randroide 11:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford wrote: I am not trying to disrupt any messages - merely responding point by point...but as you wish.

Thank you very much for your undertanding, Southofwatford.

Southofwatford wrote: Can I take it from your latest response that you are accepting the proposal to create the controversies page now?

Of course you can not. First we must make clear which contents are to stay in the main article and which are to be moved to the "controversies" article: All controversial issues should be moved.

Southofwatford wrote: I don't understand what you mean on the look of the main article, where do I find this?

/Atelier. This is the atelier with the new main article I propose, with all the controversies removed. If you agree on this new main article, we could create right now the new "controversies" article, including ALL the removed controversial topics.

Southofwatford wrote: Suggested new wording:...

  • Would be perfect with addition of "The 13th devide genuineness has been disputed". Sorry: If you want to include controversial topics, you should accept also the inclusion a mention to the debate about that topic.
  • ...but if we want to create an independent article for the controversies, all the controversial information should go there. Unless you accept my additional line.

Southofwatford 11:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC) I've had a quick look at the atelier, but I'm at work now and need time to look through it in more detail. Probably on Tuesday next week I will be able to do this and then we can decide what to do.

Randroide 12:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Of course you will need time to do a good job reviewing the proposed new article. I will improve the proposal at the Atelier while you are out. That´s the advantage of the atelier: You can experiment and discuss in a "private" version of the article. We will talk about the details the next week. Have a good weekend.Randroide 12:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

--Larean01 11:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC) I dispute the factual accuracy of some of the description of events in the Atelier. In particular there is confusion concerning the concentrations on the 12th and the 13th. It might be that a sentence o several senteces have been deleted between this:

"There were also people wondering "who has been?", in reference to the lack of accurate information. [8] [9][10]"

and this:

"This time the mood was not peaceful. The group that had congregated on Puerta del Sol chanted and made an all-round racket, bashing bottles and dustbin lids, in a demonstration of anger towards Aznar. [11]"

Furthermore:

"Also, the many TV appearances of the conservative candidate Mariano Rajoy the same day were illegal, too."

It is not explained what the appearances were for. I just remember one, by the way, check your facts. And you do not mention Rubalcaba's afterwards. A correct sequence of events would be:

1) An interview with Rajoy appears in El Mundo where he expresses his "moral conviction" on ETA's authorship.

2) Acebes appears at mid day (check the time) maintaining the same official position: ETA is the prime suspect. He adds there might be collaboration between different groups. At this time he knows arrests are inminent.

3) Arrests are made.

4) Around 6 or 7 PM demonstrations begin in Genova St. and quickly spread to other cities, in front of PP offices. Demonstrations seem to have been called by mobile text messages and Internet. To this day the PP blames the PSOE for having called them and the PSOE denies it.

5) Rajoy appears on TV asking for demostrations to be stopped and blaming the PSOE for them.

6) Rubalcaba appears on TV riposting that PSOE has no involvement in organizing the concentrations. He adds "Spaniards deserve a government that does not lie to them".

7) At some point the group in Genova moves to Puerta del Sol and organizes a "cacelorada" (is this confirmed?). Police dissolves the concentration in Barcelona.

8) At some point during the evening both PP and PSOE go to the electoral authority to denounce the other party's activities: the interview and the concentrations. The authority calls for the demonstrations to stop.

9) Acebes appears late at night announcing that a reivindicatory islamist tape has been found.

"Rumours circulated afterwards, and were propogated by film director Pedro Almodovar, that Aznar had approached the king and asked for the election to be postponed, to which the king responded that this would constitute a coup d'etat. Aznar's party, the People's Party, have since threatened to sue Almodovar for his comments"

It should be made very clear that Almodovar´s remarks were made after the election, so they had no effect on it. Almodovar was criticised by several people, including Zapatero, and retracted his remarks with an apology after the PP threatened to sue. The PP then dropped the suit.

As a general remark: I do not think the investigation should be removed from the article. There are statements of fact concerning the investigation that nobody disputes.

  1. ^ http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/05/05/espana/1146845449.html
  2. ^ http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/05/05/espana/1146845449.html
  3. ^ http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/03/13/espana/1142218073.html
  4. ^ [16]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_Madrid_train_bombings/Archive_4&oldid=1042947173"