Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about 2004 Madrid train bombings. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Formal request to Igor21

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Randroide 11:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC) I made you questions 1 and 2 the last week, Igor21. You did not give an answer. I will ask you again this questions, and the new third question.

Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

User Igor21 wrote: now that it is possible to demonstrate that Pedro J was favourishing the creation of the death squads[1]

The "source" provided is an unrelated quote taken from a blog. [2].

1. Did you checked this quotation with the original Diario16 source?.

If you did not, you said nothing, because you have no source. An intervention in a blog is nothing.

User Igor21 wrote: So when PP and PSOE agree in doing dirty war against ETA terrorists in the 80's... [3]

2. Where is your source for this claim?.

You gave me a false reference for this claim [4]. Give me the correct one, please. Magazine or newspaper and approximate date is enough. I will check that reference in the library.

User Igor21 wrote: I forgott to speak about Anson and La Razon. Anson was involved in a attempt of military coup in the 80s.[5]

3. Where is your source for this claim?.

If you have no sources, you have a very easy way out: You ask the assistance of an administrator, you explain him/her that you thought that you had sources but that you were wrong, he/she erases your (so far) libels and we go back to square one, the situation we had before your (so far) libels.

Southofwatford 11:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Randroide, this debate is completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the article on the Madrid bombings, and I fail to understand your objectives in attempting to continue it. I remind you as well that the conspiracy theorists have made any number of completely unsubstantiated and very serious accusations against living persons - the fact that in most cases they are unwilling or unable to name the persons they accuse does not make the accusations any less serious. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and I suggest you drop this issue now.

Randroide 11:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1. You fail to understand that, so far, Igor21 is making libel. If he has no sources, all his defamatory interventions should be erased.

2. I do not live in a glass house, I live in a reinforced concrete bunker: All my claims are sourced, claims made by Igor21 are not.

3. Thank you for your kind suggestion, but I am not going to drop this subject until Igor21 gives us satisfactory sources or until an administrator erases his libels from the history. Be sure about this point. I am not going to tolerate defamatory stuff in this page.

Southofwatford 12:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC) First of all, libel does not cease to be libel just because you have a source; in fact it becomes a libel in the moment of publication. Secondly, you have not provided sources for the Vallecas bomb being planted, or for the Leganés suicide being a setup - not a single source that you have given us justifies either claim, and they are extremely serious claims. The crucial difference, too, is that you propose to include such serious charges in the article. If you want to clean the talk pages of all claims that have not been substantiated then we are going to be very very busy. You have already asked an administrator to intervene, and the administrator has suggested that we try to get on with resolving differences over the content of the article.

Randroide 12:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1. We are talking about "Wikipedia libel", not about libel alleguedly made by an external source. That´s an entirely different issue.

2. Yes, I provided those sources tyou are talking about: Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings/Controversies about the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Those sources are not good enough for you?. Great, and your sources asserting the opposite (that there was really a mass suicide in Leganés, that the Vallecas bag was really in the trains...) are neither good enough for me.

No problem: We follow NPOV guidelines and use both sources to create the article.

Southofwatford 12:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Where is your source showing that the Vallecas bomb was planted? It's not that I dispute the quality of your sources, it's simply that the sources you have provided so far do not show that it was planted. The same with Leganés. If the sources do not back up the claims made then by your own criteria you have to withdraw those claims. You are digging yourself into a hole here that you may wish to avoid.

Randroide 12:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I provided you the link for my sources. Not enough proof for you?. Sorry. Your sources are neither proof enough for me.

I could write "Where is your source showing that the Vallecas bomb was really in the trains?" and ask you just the same questions you are asking me, because you have neither offered proof for that assertion.

I do not do it because it would be a waste of time: There is a disagreement among sources and you believe to one sourced version of the facts and I believe a different sourced version.

And the same with Leganés, and the same with the Goma-2 issue, and the same with the Skoda Fabia...

Solution: NPOV. To write the article with both sides of the history.

Southofwatford 12:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC) The claim that the bomb was planted is not made (at least not directly) in your sources - not surprising, given that they have no evidence for it. The tactic being, of course, to imply or insinuate that this was the case. Nevertheless the claim is not substantiated. You continually confuse having a source claiming problems with the indictment with having one that supports the claims you make - the two are not the same thing. Anyway, I have no intention of arguing again here what has been argued many times before - I regard your attempt to revive last weeks argument as a provocation, it seems clear to me that you are trying to use Wiki disciplinary measures as a tactic to try and remove those who disagree with you. If you have a complaint to make, then make it - otherwise leave it. But be clear that the criteria you attempt to apply to others can also be applied to you.

Randroide 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC) If Igor21 does not take appropiate action, I will complaint to an administrator for libel against Manuel Fraga, Pedro J. Ramírez and Luis María Anson, be sure about this point. But Igor1 must have a warning about what is he doing and a chance to defend himself or to ask himself to an administrator to his (so far) libels to be erased.

I want to remove no one. I want to see Wikipedia rules enforced.

If you think that I am not abiding by Wikipedia rules, I suggest you to call administrative attention towards my contributions.

Southofwatford 13:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC) I am not calling for administrative action on your contributions because I do not try and use the administrators as a tool to get my way on this page. I encourage Igor21 to ignore your latest manoeuvre, I intend to do the same, and you can make as many complaints about it as you like.

Randroide 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For Southofwhatford: You do not need to call administrative action against me because I broke no Wikipedia rule. I never requested administrative attention against you because your behaviour is far better than Igor21´s.

Igor21 made unsourced (and slanderous) statements about three living (and famous) spanish persons. That´s Wikipedia libel, a very serious issue.

IMHO you are giving Igor21 a very, very bad piece of advice. I encourage Igor21 to give us the requested sources or to save his honour contacting himself with an administrator to clean his (so far) libellist mess.

For Igor21: Once upon a time, Igor21, I boarded a long-distance train without the ticket, because I forgot the ticket at home. Once I realized I had no ticket, I went directly to the ticket collector to say him I forgot my ticket at home, he said me "sit down and do not worry". I bought a new ticket en route and the problem was solved... but one must search to the ticket collector and tell him what´s going on, just to save his face and his honour (and maybe to avoid further complications).

If you have no ticket, (i.e., if you lost your references, or can not remember dates or magazines) I suggest you to contact with the ticket collector (i.e., with the administrator) to solve this conumdrum while saving your face and avoiding further complications.

OK, Igor21: Do you have your tickets or not?. References, please.

Please note that I am going beyond my duty offering you my help looking for those "lost" references in the library if you have no exact dates, and that´s because I am interested in this issue. Please remember that "The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim" [6]. If I offer you my help is because I have an interest in this issue, not because I had an obligation to do so

Accusations made by Southwatford against me of using administrative action to "to get my way on this page" are evidently total nonsense: I am offering you my help to found those "lost" sources... but you must be very specific about them: Publication and approximate date of publication is a must. The cue of the police with gas mask in the cover also helps, because I am going to check dozens of different magazine covers.

--Larean01 21:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I come back after several days and what do I find? Deadlock and tangential discussions with no bearing on the article. I am absolutely flabbergasted about your libel charges, Randroide. ALL of the conspiracy theory is a libel! I love this quote by Wales: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Bear that in mind, Randroide, the next time you put forward an unsupported conspiracy claim. Sánchez Manzano, Ramírez, the policemen who drove the Kangoo to Canillas, the policmen who found the bag, the Tedax (bomb deactivation squad) who de-activated the Vallecas bomb... they are all real people who can be hurt by your words.

Randroide 08:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Larean, the Official Conspiracy Theory (i.e., "the islamists made it") is loaded to the top of accusations of extreme incompetence against the spanish Police, the spanish Secret Services and the Guardia Civil.

Please, try something better that you latest emotionalist pseudo-argument.

If you think that libel is a "tangential discussion", you are wrong.

Randroide : I think you must walk the distance from a unilaterial interrogatory to an open dialogue. We were trying to establish the nature of El Mundo as a source in this wiki. English Wikipedia is the World Wikipedia so a Spanish newspaper here is a local paper how succesful as it can be in his corner of the globe. If this newspaper is creating a story that can be the scoop of the century (i.e. a socialdemocrat european party killed -or helped to kill- 191 innocents to win elections next weekend and has killed 6 more in the to cover up) in an issue as islamist terror that is doing frontpages around the planet nearly daily, I thing it is pertinent to make some questions : "How world class press reacts to this revelations?" "Do they send their investigation teams?"."Do they carefully study the pros and cons in their pages?" The answer to these questions should determine if El Mundo investigations go in the main article or in the "conspiracy (or alternative) theories" article to wait there until the issue has confirmation in the world class press.

I think we must do an RFC to ask where El Mundo lonely original investigations must be placed at the light of its international lack of eco, either intermixed with the main text or in conspirations (or alternative) theories. Since Randroide consideres Southofwatford "much better than Igor21" and I consider Southofwatford infinetely much better than Randroide, I propose to him and to Larean01 that Southofwatfor does the wording of the RFC.

Regarding Pedro J Ramirez, Luis María Anson, Federico Jimenez Losantos, and Manuel Fraga Iribarne and the relationship of these four gentlemen with famous events during the last 20 years of Spanish history, since they are not only living persons but also very noticeable ones who have impressed clear foot steps, we can discuss at lenght and show each other really picturesque and fully documented quotes, but perhaps should be better if do in their own articles.--Igor21 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not al-Qaida link, Influence in elections: Two references

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Randroide 14:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While the bombers may have been inspired by Bin Laden, a two-year investigation into the attacks has found no evidence that al-Qa'ida helped plan, finance or carry out the bombings, or even knew about them in advance.[7]

Published: 13 March 2004: In the campaign for tomorrow's general election in Spain, the centre-right party led by the two-term Prime Minister, José Maria Aznar, looked to be heading for an easy victory..[]...In the most recent poll, taken on 8 March, the socialists had narrowed the PP's lead to 4.5 percentage points from 6.2 percentage points in an earlier survey. The PP were seen as winning between 168 and 173 seats, short of the 176 needed for an absolute majority. Polls over the weekend said it would win between 162 and 172. Should forensic investigations and security force inquiries reveal today that the attacks were carried out by Eta - a charge denied by the group yesterday - then the PP looks set to seal its lead. [8]

Other issues from the last source:

Should he win tomorrow's poll, Mr Zapatero has promised to bring home the troops engaged in peace-keeping in Iraq when their mandate comes to an end on 30 June. Mr Zapatero, 43, who took over the weary and divided party in 2000, has also pledged to maintain a tough line against Eta - a commitment questioned by Mr Rajoy.

Well, Zapatero is a liar. I could not miss the chance to remind this simple fact.

And, finally, you´ll love this, Southofwatford: The Spanish daily newspaper El Mundo - a staunch supporter of the ruling Popular Party (PP) throughout the campaign.

Be happy, Southofwatford, you can now say that The Independent said that "El Mundo" was "a staunch supporter" of the PP.

Southofwatford 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Well of course the Independent is a decent source of information, they have no axe to grind like El Mundo, so they can make impartial judgements.

Your allegation about Zapatero counts as libel by your own criteria, although it's much more mild than that spread by many members of the conspiracy theorists campaign - who directly call him a terrorist.

Interesting the contrast this source offers on how the conspiracy theorists treat allegations involving Al-Qaeda, and those involving ETA. Because the Independent quote does not mean that Al-Qaeda were not involved in the bombings, all it says is that there is no proof of that involvement. The conspiracy theorists take absence of evidence in this case as proof of non-involvement. Were we to substitute ETA for Al-Qaeda in the same quote we can safely assume that the conspiracy theorists would draw a different and opposite conclusion - in this case they would demand proof that ETA were not involved. It's the double standard of evidence which the conspiracy theories are based on.

Moving Forward On The RFC

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Southofwatford 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC) I will try either later today or tomorrow to suggest a wording for an RFC that covers all the issues in dispute where I think outside comment will be helpful - I will post my proposed wording here first so that everyone can comment on whether they agree with it for submission. I am not proposing to try and find a wording that is completely neutral because we could be here 3 months arguing about that - the key objective is to represent all points of view. It may even be a better idea to present separate RFC's for separate issues. All suggestions are welcome on what to include.

Proposed topics:

1). Treatment of conspiracy theories, ask for opinions on how they should be handled - whether the approach we have tried of separating them into a controversies article is a valid approach. Definition of what is or is not a conspiracy theory

2). Treatment of sources - The El Mundo issues, on what grounds might it be acceptable to reject sources, how do we treat sources that are involved themselves in developments on what they are reporting i.e. where the source forms part of the story

3). How to describe the perpertrators in the main article

Randroide 09:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Egyptian curse again. Seems it is our fate. Please define "conspiracy theory" to start talking with you about the issue.

2) Yeah, the same goes for Catalonian Nationalist media, "El País" and the SER (read:Suicidal terrorist in the trains) or the Indictment (read: Impossible self contradictory narratives).

3) We do not know who the perpetrators were were, so we can not "describe" them.

Southofwatford 09:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Well the simplest way to avoid the Egyptian curse is not to even try to find a wording that satisfies everyone, we put together a joint RFC but which contains a short statement on each issue from each editor who wants to contribute, describing their position. I also think it will be better to do separate RFC's on each contentious issue rather than mix everything together into one. That way I can talk about conspiracy theories, I still find the Wiki definition to be satisfactory, and you can talk about doubters or alternative explanations, or official versions. Then , as part of the process we can ask other editors what they think is the correct terminology.

Randroide 09:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Without a common wording we do not know what we are talking about. Communication is impossible. That´s the reason I do not employ any longer the "official version" expression, but the purely descriptive "Indictment". I suggest you to employ "doubters".

Southofwatford 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) On the discussion page or in an RFC we can both use the terminology we choose to use. In the article we need a common wording, and the best way is obviously to refer to things directly as what they are; El Mundo, the indictment, the parliamentary commission etc. But outside of the article I continue to describe a conspiracy theory as what I believe it to be. Those who accuse the Spanish government of colluding with ETA in organising the bombings are not doubters by any conceivable use of the word.

Randroide :

1)If you want to know what are conspiracy theories you can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories where you will find abundant information.

2)You said at some point that the difference of 11-M and the reason why we cannot apply the 9/11 pattern is that a major newspaper support the non-mainstream theories. So it is time to see if the comunity thinks that a single newspaper in a corner of the globe is enough to contradict the world class newspapers or if it only deserves the conspiracy theories article.

3)We do not know the perpetrators but we know that the mainstream of world class media asumes that they were islamists and that are the guys who are in prison accused and waiting for trial. El Mundo thinks that they are just innocent chaps so you can state this in the conspiracy (alternative) theories.

I understand that you have not found a solid evidence that world class media or any intelligence institution agrees in any way with El Mundo original lonely "investigations" and twisted revelations. Lets comunity comment how this mistery can happen (a world conspiration against El Mundo) and which treatment must give English Wikipedia to it. You are free to offer the thesis that "all the newspapers except El Mundo are written by the same hand" as you did above. --Igor21 10:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 10:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Look, Igor21: First answer my questions, and then I will answer yours. Thank you.

Randroide : I am not asking any questions to you since I perfectly know each single nuance of your position after the oceans of ink you regularly produce using your very well known squid tactics. I am stating my position regarding RFC. The answers we need are from the comunity to finally go out of this deadlock and proceed to a final version of the article that reflects the mainstream world class newspapers position, instead of the position of a single local newspaper (that is accusing living people and existing institutions of the most horrible crimes without any evidence except non-confirmed revelations and carefully worded insinuations).--Igor21 12:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford 08:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Here is my suggested wording for the introduction to an RFC on the issue of how to handle conspiracy theories. What I propose is that each editor who wants to can attach their own personal "position statement" to the RFC, a short (1 or 2 paragraphs) summary of their opinion on this issue. This should not be seen as an opportunity to debate points made by other editors, any attempt to use it in that way means that it will not work. The aim should be that any outside editor reading the position statements gets a basic introduction to the different positions.

My proposed introduction statement: We invite comment from other Wikipedia editors on a series of issues which are holding up editing of the article on the 11th March 2004 Madrid train bombings. These issues have all been discussed at length on the article Talk page, to avoid confusing different topics we will deal with them in separate RFC’s. One of the main issues has been how to deal with “alternative explanations” or “conspiracy theories” surrounding these events (we are not even able to reach agreement on the terminology to use to describe these). An attempt has been made to separate the discussion of such theories into a new “Controversies” article, but this process has run into problems because the editors involved have not been able to agree on the line of separation between a straightforward neutral account of events, and the new controversies article. Below are position statements from the different editors involved in this discussion – we welcome all contributions and suggestions on how to handle this issue.

Southofwatford 10:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Here is my position statement - I count 279 words and I suggest we impose a voluntary limit of 300 words for each editor statement so that those who read the RFC are not overwhelmed by pages of text. Let me emphasise again that no statement should attempt to reply to that of another editor, if that starts to happen I withdraw my support for submitting an RFC.

In my opinion we are dealing here with an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for a political campaign. The conspiracy theories about the Madrid bombings accuse the current Spanish government of acting in collusion with ETA, and occasionally other agents such as the French or Moroccan secret services, in an attempt to remove the previous government from power. These theories have not arisen spontaneously from the work of intrepid investigative journalists; they are the result of a planned campaign involving supporters of the previous government and media groups whose motives are a mixture of the political, commercial and possibly personal. The serious accusations made by the conspiracy theorists are not backed up by positive evidence, the objective of the whole campaign is to try and insinuate and suggest government and ETA involvement by casting doubt on the judicial investigation which forms the basis of the forthcoming trial, expected to begin early next year.

In an attempt to accommodate this campaign, I have been in agreement with the proposal to create the new controversies page. However, I do not accept any equivalence between the conspiracy theories and the account of events which emerges from the judicial investigation; largely because the conspiracy theories do not stand independently on their own merits – they depend almost entirely on finding supposed faults with the judicial investigation. I believe that we should be able to present these theories within the political context that has produced them, and make clear their origin. In my opinion the main article on the bombings should include a short reference to the controversies and direct readers to the new page – and need include nothing else on the issue.

This would be my text : The key issue here it is not that the theories are completely unbelievable but the fact that all the international press ignores them. My idea is that it is imposible to construct a narrative that blends the point of view of the mainstream of intelligence services and world class media with the point of view of the conspirationists. So both things must be separated and the question is if we present the reason for these theories to exist which can be perfectly sourced or we limit to allow conspirationists to state whatever they want in their separate article. BTW, I do not think that controversy exists since is largely a unilateral discussion. Mainstream world society knows that was an islamist bombing and the small Spanish local group of conspirationist are not really answered except in wikipedia were they think that they deserve half of the space forcing other editors to argue endlessly what is the accepted truth and what are theories supported only by a minority of local media (minority even in Spain not to say worldwide).--Igor21 17:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC) My provisional RfC statement:

1. Allegations made by different media (spanish, british and american) about the shady and unclear issues around the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings belong in Wikipedia by simple application of Wikipedia policies.

Those sources belong because those allegations fit perfectly under WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, WP:REF and WP:NOR. Trying to expel those sources from the article would be a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV.

1.1.My spanish sources are the second and fourth spanish newspapers: "El Mundo (Spain) and w:es:La Razón (España)[9]"

1.2.My american and british sources for the same issues can be seen at here. Those sources are National Review, Times Online and The Guardian.

2. The doubters of the Indictment are a very wide spectrum of people supporting very different possitions.

2.1.The "softer" doubters (among them Pedro J. Ramírez) only point to allegued inconsistencies in the Indictment, avoiding the enunciation of any "alternative theory" about what happened.

Is up to my detractors to prove the opposite, and such proof does not exist. All their rantings about "conspiracy theories", without a single source provided, are simply a bag full of air.

El Mundo (Spain) investigations are "soft" doubters, and, by mere application of the definition, it is totally incorrect to call them "conspiracy theories", because they do not try to explain the "ultimate cause of an event".

2.2.Only the "harder" doubters ("Peones negros", for instance) expressely voice alternative theories about what happened (i.e., about if the bombings were perpetrated only by ETA, or by ETA and corrupt police officers, or by other countries secret services, etc)

Only the "harder" doubters could be called "conspiracy theorists", just as the Indictment could also be called a "conspiracy theory", if we apply consistently the definition of Conspiracy theory.

3. The Indictment and their supporting media are valid sources, but self-contradictory, incomplete, or simply unreliable.

This must be proved and explained to give full context for this issue: Without "El Mundo" and "La Razón" investigations the article would be POV, false and misleading.

Just some examples:

3.1. Falsehood uttered by a pro-Indictment source: The PRISA owned Cadena SER said on March 11th 2004 that three different sources assured to the SER that a suicidal terrrorist was in the trains. This lie proved later as a falsehood, but helped to change perceptions in those crucial hours (just before the election). *Source and quotation in spanish:"Tres fuentes distintas de la lucha antiterrorista han confirmado a la Cadena SER que en el primer vagón del tren que estalló antes de llegar a Atocha, iba un terrorista suicida"[10].

3.2. Falsification perpetrated in the Indictment: A reference to ETA was deleted from a spanish police report by a spanish police chief [11].

3.2.1. The reference to this report was erased with Tipp-Ex correction fluid [12].

3.2.2. The policeman who made the falsification is accussed by a judge (thanks God there are still decent judges in Spain) [13].

This coverup was uncovered thanks to "El Mundo" investigations.

3.3. Self Contradiction in the Indictment:

3.4. We do not know which explosives went of in the trains. May sound incredible, but it is true. The spanish judiciary Indictment is like an Indictment about someone killed by shooting without a ballistics report.

Pedro J Ramírez (see quotes) asked in july 2006 for the official report about the analysis made the day of the bombings, and that report does not appear. Ask about that report to my adversaries. My sources are the only spanish sources that think that the allegued nonexistance of that report is a grave cause of concern.

--Larean01 11:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia does not attempt to characterise sources as reliable. That is up to the good faith of the editors. It is simply false that Wikipedia compells the use of a source just because its claims are in print or because of readership. As I mention repeatedly, The National Enquirer iGs NOT a reliable source, but it fulfills your criteria for a reliable source. You have not offered any counterargument to this.

2. It is false that the doubters are a wide spectrum of people supporting different positions. They are all anti-PSOE (antigovernment), usually virulently so, and are also politically close to the PP. On the contrary, the critics of the "doubters" do come from all sides of the political spectrum, with a majority of them being on the left.

2.1 To call Pedro J. Ramírez a "soft" doubter is disingenous. He has been on record several times saying there is little or no doubt that Police forces tampered with the evidence. Now, that IS a conspiracy theory, among other things because there is not a whiff of evidence for that claim.

2.2 You still have to explain why the indictment is a conspiracy theory (and El Mundo's distortions aren't!). You always ignore my arguments, going back to square one, repeating your arguments in your own particular version of Groundhog Day.

3. It is very disingenuous to try to dump together all the "pro-indictment" sources and try to blame all of them for the mistakes or manipulations of one of them. That is called "guilt by association" and it is a well-known fallacy. In particular, it is ridiculous to try to cast doubt on a judicial indictment because of the sins of a radio station.

Please, Randroide. If you do not answer my arguments this time I will start to think that you are not interested in a fair article, but in furthering your personal beliefs and political agenda.

--Larean01 19:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have checked extensively how this kind of dispute is solved in Wikipedia. In all the familiar cases where there is an overwhelming majority of the relevant community of experts (be it scientific or judicial) that widely agree on a theory/factual explanation, that theory or explanation is given in the main Wikipedia article. "Alternative" (i.e. conspiracy) theories proposed by outsiders (meaning people outside the community of experts) are given much lesser attention, and are usually put together in a single section and/or in a secondary article. As far as I can see this applies to evolution theory, JFK assasination theories, 9/11 and even more controversial subjects, like global warming.

I contend that the main article cannot be reduced to an account of undisputed facts, as one of the editors wants to do. This will make the article bland and uninformative, as few relevant aspects have not been challenged by conspiracy theorists. I also contend that neither the main article nor the Controversies article can give "equal time" to both sides. The judicial account of a crime, put together by the Police forces and the tribunals of a working democracy, must take precedence over biased and inaccurate journalist accounts. Giving equal time to 11-M conspiracy theories would be tantamount to giving equal time to creationism in an article about evolution theory.

The sources quoted by conspiracy theory proponents are suspect and do not meet Wikipedia standards in that they are not reliable WP:Reliable_sources. They can be shown to be factually wrong, self-contradictory, pursuing a political agenda and failing most relevant deontological journalism principles. They can be shown never to admit, correct or withdraw a factual error. The fact that they have a wide circulation is immaterial to their reliability. So do the National Enquirer or The Sun

Conspiracy theorists are making very serious accusations against living people without any evidence, running against the conclusions of the largest and most thorough criminal investigation in Spanish history, and against the accepted account held by all the police forces of the Western world, all of its political leaders and all major international news outlets. The only place conspiracy theories have in Wikipedia is as a social and political phenomenon, not as proponents of alternative and equally respectable explanations to what happened.

Lengthened intro

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

I lengthened the intro a bit, just mentioned that it was carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, not ETA, but that the early ETA accouncment by the government has been a source of much contraversy. I don't know much about the attacks, just noticed that the intro said nothing about who did it, or the election contraversy, so I read it and added a short version.

I was not 100% sure "losely ties" was really the relationship to the MICG, but that was the main impression I got from the article.

Also, it looks like your disputes on this article are about specific sources in specific subsections. Can someone please move the factual acuracy disclaimer to the specific etions which are under dispute? JeffBurdges 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The disputes are about who did it. There is a newspaper in Spain who says that was a conspiracy organized by Spanish police, ETA and the socialdemocrat party. Since in Wikipedia the sources are Holy, the conversation driffted to if a soucrce that says such a think can be considered a source -bearing in mind that international world class newspapers have completely ignored the possibilty of such conspiracy. Then we have a second area of dispute about the way that this theories must be reflected either 1)by mixing with the main text or 2)in a separate article written by someone who believes in it or 3)explaining why a group of people are doing what are doing inventing these theories. The discussion has reached a deadlock and we were preparing an RFC for help.

Regarding your change, I do not think is necesary to name the blaming of Mr. Aznar to ETA in the intro since is a local politics thing while the bombing is an international issue.--Igor21 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) JeffBurdges, please , read /Controversies about 11M-2004:Sources in english.

Who made it is a hotly disputed issue, and the "islamist" autorship it´s not clear at all. We are trying to move all controversies to a different page, and who made it is a controversial issue.

In reality these controversies are unilateral since everybody knows what happened and nobody seirous bothers to answer the inane allegations of the conspirationists. Only the special structure of wikipedia is forcing us to argue because Randroide pretends that that this page of links is legitimation enough to say that the conspirative theories can be sourced. Since the page do no grows, we must understand that this limited and not compromised eco is all that such scoop has received outside Spain : all in all nothing.--Igor21 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 18:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Igor21 wrote: Since the page do no grows...

By Jupiter!. He uttered that "argument".

Igor21 has the bad habit of not answering my questions (vide supra), but I will ask him a new question anyway: Igor21, could you please point us to the Wikipedia policy that requires "expanding sources"?.

Sources are sources, d**n it!!!. I got my international sources talking about the shady issues about the Madrid bombings presented by El Mundo (Spain) . A "forever expanding pool" of sources is not required in Wikipedia.

Moreover: The page does not grow because I made my point: The controversies appear in the international media.

I do not need to present "a new dissident source every week", just for Igor21´s kicks and jiggles.

Wikipedia does not require expanding sources but sufficient sources. Because everybody saw first time that your extremely short list of international media -only tangencially naming the issue- cannot be taken as "international media echoing or at least debating El Mundo "investigations"", we thought that you would make it grow before coming back with your claims. However, here you are again waiving the same clearly insufficient list.--Igor21 19:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 19:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Sufficient or insufficient by what standard?.

By Wikipedia standards it is what it is required: Sources in newspapers and Ma¡gazines. Your "thinking" about what is or is not sufficiente is totally irrelevant.

Ok. Son can we now please proceed with the RFC to see if the community thinks that a local Spanish newspaper contradicting all the planet and a handful of loosy references of "El Mundo says" in a couple of international media are enough or not to embark wikipedia credibility? Thank you.--Igor21 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ...a "handful" of references from, so far, the second and fourth spanish newspapers ("El Mundo" and "La Razón"), the "Gaceta de los Negocios" economics newspaper, the National Review, The Guardian and the Times Online.

--Larean01 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide: we have gone through this before. The second Spanish newspaper is probably between "Marca" and "As" (sports newspapers), not "El Mundo". And tabloid circulation elsewhere is no indication of quality reporting. Besides, your foreign sources DO NOT endorse conspiracy theories. They mention them, most of the time in a bemusedly critical way.

Randroide 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Hi, Larean. I was waiting for your statement to finish mine.

The second Spanish newspaper is probably between "Marca" and "As"

Sources, please. Your say so is not enough.

your foreign sources DO NOT endorse conspiracy theories

Do you really think that?. You must read all of them ,carefully. You are wrong. Yes, some are critical, but some are extremely sympathetical, like, for instance the National Review article.

It is a very sad thing to see adults wasting their time trying to present "El Mundo" as a tabloid.

--Larean01 11:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Source:

http://download.aimc.es/aimc/02egm/resumegm106.pdf

El Mundo is third after Marca and El Pais. If you include free press, it falls to the sixth place.

El Mundo in this instance acts as a tabloid. 100% as a tabloid. Its model is Charles Foster Kane, or William Randolph Hearst if you will. And it is even sadder to see intelligent adults wasting their time defending absurd conspiracy theories.

BTW, The National Review is a well-known politically-biased OPINION source.

Randroide 13:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Please, show me a single newspaper or magazine that is not politically-biased and does not include OPINION (ahhh...I copied this "opinion" from your latest post).

Thank you very much for the EGM study. It is very interesting and I learnt there what "La Razón" is NOT the fourth spanish newspaper. I was wrong about this issue. This is the good thing of working with rational and hard-working adversaries: You always learn new pieces of data.

Some issues:

"Marca" is a sport newspaper, so it does not count but for Sports.
Newspapers given for free do not count, they are like propaganda flyers in your meilbox. You could also start counting Jehovah's Witnesses publications and suddendly pro-Indictment sources circulation would suddendly look marginal.
The EGM is notoriously anti-El Mundo [14]. I will try to find the OJD report.
The EGM study you linked was published breaching an spanish judge direct order [15]. The non spanish reader may start to understand what kind of country is Spain where this things happen.

--Larean01 17:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned "Marca" in my first objection. You then asked for sources. I provided one. But the point is immaterial. I am VERY VERY glad that you acknowledge that some sources are not reliable because they are notoriously anti something. THAT is what Southofwatford and I have been telling you about El Mundo. Now that you acknowledge that reliability can be questioned, we can start moving forward in this discussion. For starters, prove that El Mundo is a reliable source.

P.S. Your last point is a non sequitur the size of the Andromeda galaxy. Disobeying a judge is about 100 trillion light-years from taking part in the conspiracies that you believe in.

Consensus offer

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Randroide 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC) I offer to write this text under "perpetrators":

Radical Islamic Cell inspired by Al-Qaeda. Disputed by some media.

...this is much better than to say nothing.

...and much, much better than the unqualified and misleading Radical Islamic Cell inspired by Al-Qaeda.

Please Randroide, may I suggest that you stop beating around the bush and proceed with the procedure? Your tactics could be considered very clever somewhere but here are starting to be absurd since everybody know you and what are you evading from.--Igor21 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know. Please, tell me and tell everybody: What I am evading for?.Randroide 12:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the "Perp(s)" section

Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

I am sorry, but I wish to let Admin know that when I noticed that the "Perp(s)" Section said "Unkowen" I attempted to change it to "Unknown Radical Muslim Terrorist Group" Because, let's face it, barring a few outlandish conspiracy theorists who still think that the Battle of Waterloo never happened if "Professor X" says it did not, it should be obvious that it was perpetrated by Radicalized Muslim Terrorists. However, for some reason there was no mention of the Perpetrator list when I got in, so I created it saying (|Perpetrator(s)=Unknown radical Muslim Terrorist Group). For some reason when I exited, the Perpetrator section vanished. I just wish to inform Admin about this and I am sorry about it. ELV (Unsigned intervention made by User talk:71.146.158.221, a.k.a. as User talk:71.146.133.208) Randroide 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly obvious and hopefully it will be possible shortly to state in the article but we must follow the procedure to get sure that the rights of outlandish conspirationists are not conculcated and their legitimate bizarre opinions are treated fairly. Please stand-by if you want to collaborate but be patient since we have here one of the most skilful conspirationists of the whole wikipedia and we expect some rabbits from the hat before truth can preside 11-M article. --Igor21 10:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While I do know that it is important to state the Perps but to also address the Conspiracy theorists, I meant this thread to note that the Perp(S) Section has vanished from the databox. I am sorry for accidentally doin this, and if I would be informed on how to correct this, I would but it back on the databox. ELV

Randroide 09:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) A tip, ELV: To sign type "AltGr" plus "4" fout times. I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?. The perps section was introduced without previous discussion and has been a continous source of disagreement. You should also explain me what do you mean when you talk about "Conspiracy theorists", because the Indictment is a conspiracy theory.

Apparently somebody removed it AGAIN! And this time it was NOT me. Also as to who I mean by conspiracy theorists, I mean some of the farther-out conspiracy theorists. I can understand perfectly SOME skeptcism, as from my review of the Basque terrorist's modous operandi, (speaking hypothetically here) had this been some of their handiwork, I would have had to say I would think that they went out of their way to make sure this was not placed on their doorstep, which is HIGHLY unusal for them, as usually they cannot stop gloating about their sick little "deeds." Do I put it past them? Not at all, it is just HIGHLY out of their usual operating procedure. Couple that witht the fact that the governmnet either a. Cannot ID one type of Explosive from another even in testing of the explosives (which I find VERY unlikely) or b. Lied about the explosive type used (which I find more likely.) What I meant by Conspiracy theorists (and yes, I may be only targeting the Extreme ones with this but oh well) the group that has gone around tossing all sorts of allegations around like A. A sympathiser to the Socialist Party of Spain planted it to discredit the People's Party political party, B. That a supporter of the People's Party planted the bomb to rally the nation around Anzar and the party, C. That English spies based in Gibraltar sneaked across the border and planted explovies to anger the Spanish against the Islamic Radicals and solidify Spanish-Allied relations, and I could go ON and ON, but you get the general idea. Kind of like the 9/11 "Truth" movement here in the US of A, a batch of people who agree that common sense is incorrect and that the Islamic Radicals were NOT responsible, but beyond that could not agree on anything else if their lives depended on it. And that is NOT an understatment in the least, if you look around the 03/11 and 9/11 Truth movement's websites. Also, I mentioned this before, but someone else deleted the Perp(s) section again.ELV

Randroide 19:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Sure, ELV. And it will be removed again, again and again. You must talk first about changes in the talk page.

Randroide, I ask you with due respect that you either deliver a new text for the RFC or accept the one that you already delivered above. --Igor21 18:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Southofwatford 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Igor21, I think you'll find that Randroide has been too busy making fresh complaints to administrators about your behaviour to concentrate on the RFC - we'll have to wait a bit longer.

Randroide 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Working on my RfC, fellas, working on it. Please feel free to add counter rebuttals to my statements if you see it neccesary. I do not want to play with the advantage of being the last one writing my statement. Try to add the references I am challenging you to produce or ad counter rebuttals.

Igor21: If you write all your future messages with the tone of tour last one, things will go much better in this page.

Southofwatford 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC) No Randroide, I made it absoluteley clear, and more than once, that this way of doing things would only have my support if editors explicitly avoided using their statements to attack the positions of other editors. It is clear from your reply to Larean01 yesterday that you were waiting to be last. If you choose to try and use that to your own advantage then you end the process. An RFC has to be neutral, I proposed a way of achieving neutrality without spending weeks arguing over wording; if you do not accept the same way of doing things as the other editors then as far I am concerned the RFC process ends here. The days of one rule for Randroide and different rules for the others are over. Your statement should not be a reply to the others, it should be a statement of your personal position on the issue

Randroide 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Are you sure, Southofwatford?.

On user conduct RfCs, do not create "disendorsement" sections on RfCs. If you disagree with something someone else has said, you may add your own separate statement explaining why you disagree.Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment

Could you please point me where is the guideline saying that Your statement should not be a reply to the others?. This is not a rethoric question. If that guideline really exists, I must read it carefully to write a proper statement. So far, I have not found that guideline.

Southofwatfor wrote: It is clear from your reply to Larean01 yesterday that you were waiting to be last. If you choose to try and use that to your own advantage then you end the process.

Of course I waited to be the last, due to a very simple reason: I must know what this RfC is about, because you, Users defending the Indictment, are changing your mind from week to week:

One month ago "El Mundo" was a good source (albeit with some issues about some specific articles) and we were working towards the creation of a "core" article.
Nowadays "El Mundo" is not good for you, guys, and the "corefication" of the main article is no longer accepted by you.

Southofwatford 10:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Randrioide, there is no point in quoting Wikipedia rules on this issue, I never claimed that what you are doing is against the rules - you always do the same. Do not confuse the right to do something with the obligation to do it, they are not the same thing. I made it clear that my support for the RFC was based on a degree of good faith, that nobody would try and take advantage of this way of doing things. Not surprisingly, you have decided that you do want to take advantage of this approach - you have the right to do so but the consequence is that I withdraw my participation, and endorsement, of this RFC. If you can convince the other editors involved to support you, then present the RFC as a political circus - I am not participating on that basis and you will have to make it clear that you do not have the consensus of the editors involved.

Randroide 13:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Southofwatford wrote: I made it clear that my support for the RFC was based on a degree of good faith

Good faith is supposed by default in Wikipedia, Southofwatford.

I must say the obvious: A Wikipedia RfC is a Wikipedia RfC, as defined in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment, not as defined by the wishes of User:Southofwatford.

You can do as you wish. I will follow the guidelines presented in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.

If the other users want to adjust their statements after seeing mine or to add further commentaries, they are completely free to do so: New data or new arguments lead to new statements. For instance: Larean just teached me that "La Razón" is NOT, as I wrongly believed, the fourth spanish newspaper, so I must rewrite my statement.

Southofwatford 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Fine, I leave it in your hands. I withdraw my position statement from the RFC, you should make it clear in any RFC that you present that consensus between involved editors was not achieved.

Randroide 14:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Yes, you are right: Consensus was not achieved in submitting to User:Southofwatford wishes about what Southofwatford would like to see and to do not see in the RfC. Consensus was not achieved because Southofwatford withdrew from the RfC once I pointed him that I am going to follow Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.

Nonetheless, I invite Southofwatford to come back to the RfC, but under Wikipedia guidelines, not under whises and whims from this of that User.

Southofwatford 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Well given that you have rejected the only proposal for structuring the RFC that was on the table, there is currently no RFC for me to come back to. I believe my proposal complied with the rules which you are busily waving in everyone's face - as is your custom. You have not demonstrated that it breaks any rules at all, but because you insist on having a special advantage unavailable to other editors you have prevented it from proceeding. Given this situation, the onus is clearly on you to present a counter-proposal which complies fully with the rules, both for you and for everyone else. If you find a way to do that which still leaves you in a privileged position then I will be very interested to see it. But until you or someone else makes a proposal I see no RFC.

Randroide 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I never said that you proposal did not comply with the rules, you said that mine did not. I am currently finishing my statement: I cite external sources, so my work is harder than yours. Please, be patient.

Southofwatford 07:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC) The issue of whether your statement is harder than anyone elses has no relevance. You have rejected the only existing proposal for wording and structure of the RFC. So until you or someone else proposes an alternative wording and structure there is little point in you continuing to work on your statement. I welcome your clarification on the rules and my proposal, I never said anything at all about your proposal because I haven't seen a proposal from you; all I have seen is your standard lecture on the ``rules``. I still see no RFC.

Randroide 09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Look carefully for mi proposal above , please, in the Moving Forward On The RFC section. It is the only text thas uses big font. You can´t miss it. I must still check some references, so I stablished to myself the deadline to finish it on this sunday, so please be patient.

So until you or someone else proposes an alternative wording and structure there is little point in you continuing to work on your statement

You are wrong: There is no need for consensus in the wording for the RfC statement, so I will continue to work happily in my statement.

Write what you thing is proper and, please, stop asking for an unnecessary consensus.

Southofwatford 09:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Well I must be missing something because the only text I see with large font is that inside your proposed statement - the proposal for the RFC structure cannot be this statement. As for the wording of the RFC I can only assume that either you haven't read the rules on wording the RFC, or you imagine - as is often the case - that the rules do not apply to you; "Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the article talk page with a brief, neutral statement of the issue" I am asking you for a proposed structure and wording for the RFC given that you have rejected the only proposal that has been tabled, consensus is necessary on the way to present the RFC. I am not talking about the content of individual editor statements, so lets see if you understand me this time. I am not going to waste my time writing anything else at the moment because you never know when another user may pop up and just reject the whole idea. I still see no RFC.

Randroide 09:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I beg your pardon, Southofwatford, I thought that you were talking about individul editor statements. Now I understand you.

This is my RfC brief, neutral statement of the issue, i.e. your previous statement with a modification.

We invite comment from other Wikipedia editors on a series of issues which are holding up editing of the article on the 11th March 2004 Madrid train bombings. These issues have all been discussed at length on the article Talk page, to avoid confusing different topics we will deal with them in separate RFC’s. One of the main issues has been how to deal with ~~“alternative explanations” or “conspiracy theories”~~ new newspaper articles about those events presenting new points of view. An attempt has been made to separate the discussion of such theories into a new “Controversies” article, but this process has run into problems because the editors involved have not been able to agree on the line of separation between a straightforward neutral account of events, and the new controversies article. Below are position statements from the different editors involved in this discussion – we welcome all contributions and suggestions on how to handle this issue.

"Alternative explanations" is misleading: My sources do not point to "alternative explanations", only to allegued shortcomings and impossibilities in the current explanation.
"Conspiracy theories" is POV.

Southofwatford 10:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC) It is simply not true or neutral to say that it is just about newspaper articles or "new" points of view. It is about accusations that have been made that the current Spanish government was involved in the bombings, my wording doesn't state that openly because I looked for neutrality but your's is just an open pretence. I reject this wording, but at least I don't wait until everything is almost ready to go before raising my objections - have you only just read my proposal this morning Randroide? I still see no RFC.