Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:07, 4 April 2007 editMantanmoreland (talk \| contribs)5,801 edits →Expansion and use of bullet points in "police" etc. section ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 10:45, 11 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,801,449 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB
(355 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	*]
			{{Talk header}}
	*]
			{{Controversial}}
	*]
			{{ITN talk\|11 March\|2004\|oldid=2720193}}
	*]
			{{On this day\|date1=2005-03-11\|oldid1=16334936\|date2=2006-03-11\|oldid2=43298513\|date3=2009-03-11\|oldid3=275825972\|date4=2010-03-11\|oldid4=349264728\|date5=2014-03-11\|oldid5=599142151}}
	{{controversial}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Spain}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=other\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|terrorism=yes\|terrorism-imp=High\|importance=Mid\|serialkiller=yes\|serialkiller-imp=Mid}}
	{{disaster management}}
			{{WikiProject Disaster management\|importance=Mid}}
	{{archive box\|<center>] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
			{{WikiProject Explosives\|importance=Mid}}
	] ]</center>
			{{WikiProject Islam\|Islam-and-Controversy=yes\|importance=Mid\|Salaf=yes\|Sunni=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Spain\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Trains\|importance=Mid}}
	}}		}}
			{{Afd-merged-from\|Jamal Zougam\|Jamal Zougam\|31 August 2024}}
	{{TrainsWikiProject\|class=B\|importance=mid\|small=yes}}
			{{Afd-merge from\|2004 Madrid train bombings suspects\|2004 Madrid train bombings suspects\|30 August 2024}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config

			\|archive=Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive %(counter)d

			\|algo=old(90d)

			\|archiveheader={{automatic archive navigator}}
	== New section on "police surveillance and informants" ==
			\|maxarchivesize=100K
	I've removed the material relating to the police surveillance and informants to a new section. This way that controversy can be fully explored in a section of its own, without implying - as would happen if put high in the article - that the cops were behind the bombing or knew about it and didn't stop it. I would suggest that some good quotes and material be removed from the footnotes and placed in this section, as I did with the Guardian article. --] 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
			\|minthreadsleft=4

			\|counter=13
	Good work, the introduction looks much better now. As a follow-up I think the issues of police surveillance and police informants should perhaps be separated - there is no evidence that I have seen that suggests those doing the surveillance were in anyway connected to those in Asturias dealing with police informers. I think the question the surveillance issue raises is why it didn't work. I have one important objection, the Guardian article you quote from is not written by a Guardian journalist, this is an opinion piece written by El Mundo's deputy editor and printed in the Guardian - not the same thing at all and not representative of the Guardian's position. I have argued with Randroide before about this source being wrongly presented and I do not think it is at all legitimate to cite this article without making clear what it's real origin is. As an opinion piece it actually adds no facts. ] 15:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
			}}

			{{Archives\|age=90\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
	:The new intro looks good as far as I'm concerned. I would agree with Southofwatford on the separation of the surveillance and police informants as independent and unconnected facts. I also agree that the question of surveillance is why it didn't work, and why intelligence sharing apparently wasn't very well implemented, even almost 3 years after the 9/11 attacks demonstrated the dire need for such cooperation. I see no problem with clarifying the original source of the guardian editorial piece. ] 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	:I'm afraid this El Mundo piece printed by the Guardian also makes a completely unfounded assertion - there is absolutely no evidence other than hearsay/wishful thinking that says the Asturians had ever sold explosives to ETA. The Spanish police have said that ETA do not buy their explosives from common criminals, they tend to either steal it themselves or when they cannot do that they have "homemade" recipes. ] 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	::I agree with the comments above. Please fix.--] 17:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	::I agree with the removal of the Guardian quote from the main text. Unfortunately I had not gone to the Guardian itself and did not know that it was an opinion piece by an editor of El Mundo, and needed to be identified as such and not as being said by the Guardina. However, I think that generally the quotes in the references should be moved up to the main section. The footnotes are too long, and have quotes and information that should be placed int he body of the text.--] 14:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:: I have moved the new section to the Controversies page - I think that is where it belongs. It still needs some work but I have put everything under the same heading on whether the bombings could have been avoided for the moment. I have also added new, but brief, introductions to the sub-articles on Controversies and Reactions to the bombings. On the footnotes I think the quotes should be removed so that we use a standard format for all footnotes - whether the quotes should be included in the main article should perhaps be discussed on a case by case basis, some of these quotes are extremely unrepresentative of the article from which they are drawn. ] 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:I don't know about that. I can see not having it in the first few paragraphs, but removing from the article entirely strikes me as going too far in the other direction.--] 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	: Well it hasn't been removed from the article, it has been placed in an appropriate sub-article together with other issues that have provoked controversy. The problem is that otherwise we will be splitting controversies into two, with some issues in the sub-article and others in the main one. The result of that will be to make the Controversies article virtually worthless. I personally believe that there are other issues already in the sub-article that are equally if not more worthy of the attention that the police informers issue has received. These are sections that can expand rapidly and end up dominating the main text, bear in mind that the section on the trial may be small at the moment but also has the scope to become larger as developments emerge. Doing things this way leaves us the possibility of having the main article for relating events, which I think is what most readers would want to see before being plunged into discussion of whether the fact that two people were police informers has any bearing on the case. ] 06:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:I reverted you edit, Southofwatford. See rationale at ].] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	::I agree that the section should remain. This material belongs in the article, but in an appropriate place.--] 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	===Please do not remove this section===
	The purpose of this section was to remove material concerning the police from the opening paragraphs, in order to not give the impression that there was police involvement in the bombings. However, this section should not be removed entirely from the article. --] 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	I will leave it although I continue to believe that it should be moved. I also reject the bogus pretext which Randroide has used for reverting the change - something is controversial if there is disagreement on the interpretation of what it means, and in this case there is clear disagreement between those (like Randroide) who think it "proves" (in the very loosest sense of the word) police involvement in the bombings, and those who do not accept such an imaginative interpretation. That is enough for something to be controversial. On POV, I will happily accept lectures on the subject from those who observe it themselves, Randroide does not even get close to membership of that group. ] 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:I thought it was wrong to have stuff about informants and surveillance in the very opening paragraphs, as that skewed the article and gave a kind of innuendo. But surely it is important enough to belong in the article at an appropriate place. Right now it is down at the bottom. Omitting it from the article entirely is overkill. Remember that if this ever goes to arbitration, unreasonable edits get counted against you.--] 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

			== "Spanish nationals who sold the explosives to the terrorists were also arrested." ==
	:I have not omitted anything - I moved it a sub-article of the main article where controversial issues are dealt with. I didn't make any change to the content of the section. ] 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	::I have a ~~problem~~ ~~with~~ ~~removing~~ ~~entire~~ ~~sections~~ to ~~that~~ ~~subarticle,~~ ~~leaving~~ ~~nothing~~ ~~behind.--~~] 15:23, 3 ~~April~~ 2007 (UTC)		I just have to ask, do we really need 15 sources for that statement? ] 06:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

			:Please look to the archived discussion to see how dificult is to say the truth in this article. The more evident issue have required months and tones of references.--] 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
	::Unfortunately if we don't do that then what gets left behind either expands where the other section doesn't, or becomes a parallel and different version. Also, we end up without narrative flow in the main article, one of the principal problems that it now has. ] 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

			All three sources that are now cited after " Although they had no role in the planning or implementation, the Spanish miners who sold the explosives to the terrorists were also arrested." do not mention any such thing, this should be changed. ] (]) 14:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
	:::That is a genuine danger, but there are ways to guard against that.--] 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	::: You can avoid it in situations where there is general agreement on where things should go and the overall structure of the article - we do not have that situation here. ] 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::::True there does not seem to be agreement on anything. But there is actually less edit warring than I would have expected.--] 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:::Plase read ], Southofwatford. ] 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.zoomnews.es/499926/actualidad/espana/pilar-manjon-lamenta-ostracismo-las-victimas-once-anos-despues-del-11-m
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005135913/http://www.cadenaser.com/comunes/2004/11m/portada.html to http://www.cadenaser.com/comunes/2004/11m/portada.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::: This is soooo repetitive Randroide, read it yourself - at no point have I suggested parallel articles on the same subject, in fact my comment is precisely against that sort of thing. Please read properly other editors comments before responding, otherwise it is disruptive of an otherwise constructive discussion. ] 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	Hi, These days and due to Christian holidays I do not have normal accesss to my computer but I managed to grab a keyboard to say something. The strategy of separating "controversial" issues for me was an eufemistic way of creating two different playgrounds : one for conspirationist and another for raw and boring truth. This part of the police neglicence can be documented as truth so I do not see why must be in a separate sub-article.

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
	What must be in a separate article (or better in a "reactions" subsection) is the speculations about "the grand mother of one of drivers of one of the trains spent her holidays in the same hotel than the second cousin of the wife of a traffic policeman who was on shift the day that the hindus -who sold the cell phones to the terrorists- celebrated the wedding of a niece..."

			== Requested move 9 June 2018 ==
	So for me the correct thing would be to say in the "reactions" section that some people reacted crying and some other reacted inventing far fetched stories and then include some examples. Another way -more post-modern and wikipedian- is to set a subsection called either controversial or alternative or conspirationist and let Randroide unleash there his vivid imagination coupled with his no-ending working capacity. Not to say, I prefer the first option but I can live with the second.--] 11:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	== Congratulations to Maussili Kalaji ! ==
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

			The result of the move request was: '''no consensus to move''' the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. ]<small>]</small> 04:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
	From being virtually unknown, just the owner of the shop where the people who sold the phones used in the bombs took them for liberation, he has now made a great leap forward and become the subject of his very own dedicated sub-section in the main article about the bombings in Misplaced Pages. Congratulations Mr Kalaji, you should thank the conspiracy theorists for plucking you from obscurity and making you what must be a ''key'' figure in the whole affair. Next, I think we need a section on the manager of the Carrefour supermarket in Avilés where the people who stole the explosives bought the rucksacks which they then used to transport the explosives from the mine. Unfortunately I don't have his or her name, but I'm sure there must be something suspicious there. ] 12:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
			----

			] → {{no redirect\|Madrid train bombings}} – Per ]. ] (]) 12:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
	Please read ].
			*'''Oppose''' there have been other bombings ] (]) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
			----
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

			== Requested move 27 December 2019 ==
	Mr. Kalaji notability has been created by sources. ] 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	Here we go, the editor as robot - ''"It was the sources that made me do it"''. Nothing to do with choosing sources that favour your political agenda, no of course not! ] 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''

			The result of the move request was: '''not moved''' to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. {{#if:\|<small>(])</small>\|{{#if:\|<small>(])</small>}}}} ]<small>]</small> 12:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
	I can't find sources on the manager of the Carrefour, but I do have some on the girl who worked at the cash till - does that mean we are obliged by our sources to create a special section dedicated to her? Maybe we can title it "Spanish cash till girl"? ] 12:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
			----

			] → {{no redirect\|Madrid train bombings}} – Per ]. Already redirects here. ] (]) 18:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
	==Expansion and use of bullet points in "police" etc. section ==
			*'''Support''' - No other multiple train bombings in Madrid. The ] didn't happen on trains, but train stations (two of them), and are far less known than the 2004 bombings. ] (]) 15:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
	I've reverted the recent edits, which turned the text into bullet points. That was unencyclopedic and not proper style, which mandates summary langauge. Additionally, the edits made the section far longer than it deserved to be, and revived the whole problem of undue weight. Additional details belong in the Controversies separate article.--] 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' - "In the escalating violence, in 1979, one wing of the ETA bombed two Madrid train stations and the airport on the same day" ... but even without that, no benefit to any reader from removing year. ] (]) 17:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' essentially per IIO ] ] 05:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. As IIO says, this could be ambiguous. And although ] would suggest omitting the year, there are far too many examples of articles where it is included, and is useful, that I think it's fine to keep it.  — ] (]) 11:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
			----
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>

			== How many days between Sept. 11, 2001 and March 11, 2004? ==
	* If you disagree about the format, please reformat the text, but ''without'' deleting sourced information, as you did.

			The article says 911.
	* This section does NOT belong in "Controversies", for the same reasons I gave yesterday to Southofwatford (''vide supra'').

			My calendar says 912: 19 days to the end of September 2001, plus October (31), November (30), and December (31) makes 111.
	* I am open to place the block of text about Kalaji in any please in the article you see as better than the current one. But the reference about Kalaji is NOT "Controverial", for the reasons cited above.

			Then all of 2002 (365 days) and 2003 (3)5 more days) brings the total to 841.
	Plase rewrite the text in a form you consider appropiate, or I will have to do myself. Thank you. ] 15:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			Then January (31) and February (29--a leap year) of 2004 brings the total to 901.
	:Randroide : The facts are not controversial. What is controversial is the undue weight you are giving to some of the facts.

			Then the event was the 11th day of March. That's 912.
	::Everybody : I want to sugest that we stop speaking about controversies and start we speaking about conspiracionist. The things that must be placed in a sub-article are the conspirationist (or alternative) accounts of facts. I think two articles (main and conspiracies) should be enough.--] 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			Is there some Spanish convention at play here where you don't count the last day? ] (]) 16:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
	:Randroide, the section was fine before you rewrote it. Bullet points are not acceptable Misplaced Pages style as the entire content of a section such as this, and you added (and overemphasized via the bullet points) excessive detail that gave undue weight to minor personages. Thus your changes were entirely unacceptable and were a nonstarter as POV pushing. The issue is not that what you added was "sourced" but that it was excessive, was POV pushing and unnecessary detail that belongs in the separate article.--] 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:45, 11 November 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2004 Madrid train bombings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A news item involving 2004 Madrid train bombings was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 March 2004.

Misplaced Pages

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 11, 2005, March 11, 2006, March 11, 2009, March 11, 2010, and March 11, 2014.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explosives Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Islam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
	This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jamal Zougam was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 August 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2004 Madrid train bombings. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The article 2004 Madrid train bombings suspects was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 August 2024 with a consensus to merge the content into 2004 Madrid train bombings. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

"Spanish nationals who sold the explosives to the terrorists were also arrested."

I just have to ask, do we really need 15 sources for that statement? Zazaban 06:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please look to the archived discussion to see how dificult is to say the truth in this article. The more evident issue have required months and tones of references.--Igor21 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

All three sources that are now cited after " Although they had no role in the planning or implementation, the Spanish miners who sold the explosives to the terrorists were also arrested." do not mention any such thing, this should be changed. Penschy (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

2004 Madrid train bombings → Madrid train bombings – Per Manchester Arena bombing. Unreal7 (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose there have been other bombings In ictu oculi (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 27 December 2019

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 12:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

2004 Madrid train bombings → Madrid train bombings – Per Manchester Arena bombing. Already redirects here. Unreal7 (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Support - No other multiple train bombings in Madrid. The July 1979 Madrid bombings didn't happen on trains, but train stations (two of them), and are far less known than the 2004 bombings. Prism55 (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - "In the escalating violence, in 1979, one wing of the ETA bombed two Madrid train stations and the airport on the same day" ... but even without that, no benefit to any reader from removing year. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose essentially per IIO Red Slash 05:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. As IIO says, this could be ambiguous. And although WP:CONCISE would suggest omitting the year, there are far too many examples of articles where it is included, and is useful, that I think it's fine to keep it. — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

How many days between Sept. 11, 2001 and March 11, 2004?

The article says 911.

My calendar says 912: 19 days to the end of September 2001, plus October (31), November (30), and December (31) makes 111.

Then all of 2002 (365 days) and 2003 (3)5 more days) brings the total to 841.

Then January (31) and February (29--a leap year) of 2004 brings the total to 901.

Then the event was the 11th day of March. That's 912.

Is there some Spanish convention at play here where you don't count the last day? Jeffreynye (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories: