Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:28, 27 March 2007

• /Controversies about 11M-2004:Sources in english
• Controversies about the 11M-2004:Proposed article
• New proposed core article
• /Proposed additions

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.

Spain Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Trains B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Where are we?

Are we in a RFC? Can I edit the article? Are we waiting for something? I cannot bear these absurd comments about the informants in the introduction. Can I finally remove it? Sorry, I feel a little lost about which step of the procedure we are in.--Igor21 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Er, I'm busy mediating another dispute. --Otheus 20:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why you can't edit the article Igor21. After 8 months of voluntary abstention by those who were looking for a solution to the dispute, the only result is an article overwhelmingly biased towards the conspiracy theories. Starting to redress that bias does not impede the search for a more long term solution to the problems of this article. Southofwatford 09:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. So I have restored what is thought to be truth by the most significant academic specialist in the issue, all main sources, Spanish police, Spanish judiciary, the large majority of Spanish newspapers and in general everybody except the Spanish newspaper El Mundo whose opinions are so minoritary that cannot monopolize the article or even be discussed in detail in it. (Its opinions must go to "controversial, alternative or conspiracy theories" article separate from the main).--Igor21 17:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted. I can't see the justification for en masse removal of material from WP:RS sources, and replacing them with a single link from the private Rand Corp. think tank. I take no position on any of the various theories, but I think the reader has a right to know what they are, so long as they in proper proportion and are not given undue weight. As I indicated in the comment above, I'd like to see a citation from a reliable English language source showing that all the material you removed is really false. If there are such sources, I certainly won't object to this stuff being taken out. --Mantanmoreland 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the rights or wrongs of different sources are, it seems to me completely wrong to convert the very first paragraph of an article about the bombings into a debate on the authorship issue. It is Islamist extremists that are accused and standing trial, the police informers issue is a conpiracy theorists favourite - we could easily substitute it with "convicted explosives traffickers", those who concentrate on them being police informers tend to forget that such informers are usually criminals too. However, nobody is accusing those who sold the explosives of having organised the attack, and mixing the two things is both confusing and misleading. Southofwatford 09:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps it needs to be rephrased. But if it is accurate, it should not be eliminated entirely.--Mantanmoreland 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased and moved, if the Al-Qaeda connection is going to be dealt with seriously then it should be taken out of what is effectively the introductory paragraph to the entire article and given a section of its own in the Controversies part. The problem on the police informers is not whether it is accurate, it might also be accurate to say some of the accused have brown hair, the question is whether it is so important that it has to appear in the first few lines of the article. Southofwatford 09:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The presence of police informers among the key perpetrators and their links with the Spanish bomb squad is NOT a "Controversial" piece of information, so it is not going to "Controversies". Let the reader decide about the importance of that fact.

BTW, there is an alleged but disputed "al-Qaida link". The link with the Spanish police is, so far, undisputed. If you are so zealous to remove "controversial" information, the "al-Qaida link" would be the first thing to go out. Read, man:

"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."

Please, inform yourself about the UN-Controversial Spanish police link:

Bomb squad link in Spanish blastsRandroide 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Randroide's response to the RFC and the dispute on article structure - impose a solution without even discussing it on the talk page. What possible argument can now be offered against any other user doing the same with the controversies section? Southofwatford 11:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We tried to separate "Controversies", Southofawatford. We failed miserably: User:Larean01/Atelier 1.

I suggest you to read carefully Misplaced Pages:Content forking before doing nothing with the "Controversies" section.

Misplaced Pages:Content forking will be enforced in this article down to the commas. Randroide 11:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If I move the Controversies section to a new article I am doing exactly what you have done with the Reactions section - exactly the same. Except that I will have advised of my intentions. That has nothing to do with content forking. Southofwatford 11:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Controversies section has been moved to a new sub-page - now we have a much smaller main article. Southofwatford 13:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your doing that, unilaterally and without consensus.--Mantanmoreland 13:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Two sections have been moved to sub-article unilaterally today - consensus has to apply to all users involved. Southofwatford 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, correct, two sections moved without consensus or even discussion. Isn't that right?--Mantanmoreland 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the way I would like to do things but I am no longer prepared, after 8 months of dispute, to accept that one user can impose his solution on the others involved in the dispute - in his case without even mentioning anything at all on the talk page. There has to be a level playing field here, and the repeated rejection by Randroide of consensus should not be rewarded. Southofwatford 14:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No one should impose unilateral solutions. Page moves are significant steps that need to be taken after consensus and discussion. I think it might be a good idea to ask an administrator who has not edited the article to step in via a notice on the Administrators Notice Board.--Mantanmoreland 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. Southofwatford 14:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I posted a note. I think it might be helpful for an administrator to stop by and read the riot act to all concerned. --Mantanmoreland 14:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So far you've gotten a thumbs-up on both moves. My suggestion is that a summary paragraph be added to each section now blanked.--Mantanmoreland 16:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well although it's not my preferred way of doing things it may at least have parked part of the dispute. The summary idea is a good one, but could just as easily become the subject of further dispute too! Anyway, I'll try and suggest something for the controversies article. If we can agree on something then fine, if not then we are stuck with the link on its own. Southofwatford 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the article was fine as it was. It is a very good article, you know.--Mantanmoreland 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on that - I think as a reliable reference on the events this article is currently in a very poor state. Southofwatford 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, why not outline (for newcomers) point by point what is wrong with it? If the article is misleading in some significant way, that needs to be corrected.--Mantanmoreland 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland : These people were drug smuglers who were asked by their suppliers of hashish to pay with dynamite. Some of them, time to time have leaked things to the police as many criminals do. Randroide cherrypoked some quotes to simulate that they were part of the cell.

It is completely surprising that in an issue of world relevance as the islamist terrorist wave, to go down to such a detail in the introduction of the article. The fact that is in the introduccion of the article gives an undue weight to a third rank detail as if it were important thus making it important which is precisely what wikipedia must do not. Only conspirationists do because they want to simulate that the bombing was done by Spanish police (and some other people like Social Democrat Party, Moroccan secret service and France). They are against the ropes now so they accept only insinuations. Randroide goal at this point es that Spanish police is named in the introduction.

I substitued these misleading cites by the opinion of the world leading expert in the issue and you reverted.

So yes, this article is excelent for conspirationist but really poor for readers since is leading them to the wrong way from the very begining. Do you thing that to start the article about 9/11 with "FBI had a list of the credit cards of the hikjakers weeks before the attacks" is to enhance truth? You can source this with thousand sources if needed but this was a negligence of FBI and put it in the begining would mean to accuse FBI what is precisely what Randroide is doing here with Spanish police. The fact that something can be sourced means nothing without context. --Igor21 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's get down to specifics. Here is the second sentence of the first paragraph:

"The perpetrators were local Islamic extremists and two Guardia Civil and Spanish police informants. It is the only terrorist act in history, according to the European Strategic Intelligence And Security Center, where non-Muslims collaborated with Muslims."

Is this inaccurate or misleading? If so, please describe how that is so. Remember that, like most people outside of Spain, I know zip about the bombings. You may well be right. If something is being given undue weight, I would like to know.--Mantanmoreland 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a suggestion: You may want to post another RfC to bring in more editors.--Mantanmoreland 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well those actually accused of having carried out the bombings are all Islamists, from a variety of countries but the majority from Morocco. The Spanish citizens who are also accused are all related to the supply of the explosives used in the bombings. It's an important distinction and the paragraph does not make it at all clear. On the question of police informers, see my comments earlier today - why is it important to mention that there are police informers and not mention that there are convicted explosives traffickers involved? The paragraph gives the impression of a mixed group of Islamists and non-Islamists carrying out the bombings - which is not correct. The emphasis on some details whilst completely omitting others is very distorted. It is not a balanced or very informative introductory paragraph. Southofwatford 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So why not make that sentence read "Spanish nationals" instead of "police informants"? Or some other neutral language? --Mantanmoreland 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That would do for me, but I doubt that Randroide will accept it - it is ridiculous in my view that the very first paragraph of the article should be used in this way, it would be quite possible to deal with the issue of the characteristics of the accused in another section. All I know is that if I try to change it I will be accused of "blanking sourced information". Southofwatford 08:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You got it right, Southofwatford: "blanking sourced information".

BTW, you started this "characteristics of the accused" "battle" in the first block of text introducing the disputed, unproven "al-Qaida link". THAT´S A DISPUTED ASSERTION, as I proved with sources. Randroide 09:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there we have it, I suppose there is always the option of introducing hair colour, marital status et il we have the longest and least helpful introductory paragraph in the whole of Misplaced Pages. To Randroide that doesn't matter, as long as he has his sources included. Southofwatford 10:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Randroide : Disputed by whom? It is the consensus of the police, the judicial, the secret services, the academics specialized in terrorism and all the main sources of the world. You cherrypicking some articles have created this abhorrent couple of paragrafs were you accused and libel Spanish police.

Mantanmoreland : These bombings were part of a wave of bombings including Bali, London, Istambul and Dheli. This is clear for everybody and you can gather 100 sources saying this. Why Randroide aberrations must remain? because he put there before? because he put against the will of the other editors? because he is completely reckless? I do not see the point. Everybody who is someone knows who did it and why. In Spain currently there is a trial on this and al the detalis are being revealed. It was an islamist bombing and the fact they bought the explosives to Asturian miners or to their aunts is not the main issue here and should be put on its place. Do not fall in Randroide's trap, This introduction must be rewritten to reflect truth and stop giving chance to absurd theories like what Randroide embedded against the will of the other editors who were respecting the rules. --Igor21 10:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposed language?--Mantanmoreland 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland : It depends on the length we give to the introduction. For me the key question is that it was an islamist attack in the context of the worldwide wave of bombings like Bali, Istambul, Bombay. If go forward, we can explain that this attack was financed locally and using local resources. If we go even forward we can say that some experts (such us Bruce Hoffman who is considered the top world expert on this or the CIA analists named in Ron Suskind "The one percent doctrine" book) see in this use of local resources a strategical move in Al-Qaeda methods that after experiencing the power of NSA and CIA in intercepting comunications and deterr centralized operations, has change to a more descentralized modus operandi.

So if the introduction is lengthy enough, we can include more and more details but always following the line of an islamist cell, not misleading people to make them think that there is something hidden in each detail. Nowadays everything is known about what happened. Is a tragic and amazing story that mixes local and global.

The cell was composed by some small scale smuglers who met with a fanatic yihadist who recruit them. They did social and religious life together and the fanatic show them many videos of Bin Laden and atrocities done to muslims. They plan the operation for some months by learning on the internet about the way of doing bombs. They bought the explosives to people who one of them has come to known in prison. It is also very moving the story about the police who disactivate the so called 13th bomb. And also the day the cell commit suicide there were moving scenes when they called their relatives to a farewell. It would be very exciting and enlightening to the readers to know about it.

But we cannot because we must discuss these ridiculous theories of Randroide that are being abandoned even by El Mundo. For me is very annoying the way this stupidities are bloking the readers to know about the fascinating truth.

So I am a very social person who love to discuss with people but my red line is that these people must be honest and be here to explain truth. Randroide invented conspiracy must go to Reactions article or if bad comes to worst to Alternative Theories.--Igor21 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Then how about changing the sentence to read as follows:

"The perpetrators were local Islamic extremists and two Spanish nationals. It is the only terrorist act in history, according to the European Strategic Intelligence And Security Center, where non-Muslims collaborated with Muslims."

Wouldn't that resolve this issue in the first paragraph? I'm assuming the Islamic extremists were not Spanish nationals.--Mantanmoreland 19:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To Mantanmoreland: Sorry, but your proposal is doubleplusUNgood.

You are suggesting to give the (alleged) ideological filiation of some guys ("Islamic extremists") and only the nationality of other guys ("Spanish nationals"). Sorry, but this is tantamount to hiding some facts and highlighting other facts. Tell the whole history and let the reader decide.Randroide 08:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well as far as I'm concerned that's a significant improvement, although there are more than 2 Spanish nationals accused. I would remove the word "local" as well, it's a bit ambiguous. I'm afraid that Randroide will almost certainly object. If you say ETA are the perpetrators he will become very happy. I still think it would be clearer to make the distinction between those accused of providing the explosives (the Spanish + 1), and those accused of having carried out the bombings (the Islamists)Southofwatford 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact those two guys were not perpetrators since they did not set up the bombs and did not put them on the trains. They only sold the explosive and they did for money and ignoring for what was going to be used. They are what in Spanish judicial parlance is called "necesary collaborators" or "accomplices".

So yes, your phrase is more accurate but it stands the question about what in the hell are doing these two nobody in the introduction of an article of such importance. And also this phrase about "the only bombing in history" to suggest that there is something that not fits (as conspirationist think).

For me the whole paragraf must be removed since is not giving aditional information but intentionally misleading towards Randroide ideas. If we are going to make a deal, the first thing is that Randroide accepts that there is nothing hidden or secret in the authorship so there is no need to let criptic suggestions around. What about me showing let's say 10 sources saying that it was done by an islamic cell? would this be enough to remove nonsense about two minor caracters in the introduction?--Igor21 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

THE man accused of supplying the dynamite used in the al-Qaeda train bombings in Madrid was in possession of the private telephone number of the head of Spain’s Civil Guard bomb squad......The revelation has raised fresh concerns in Madrid about links between those held responsible for the March bombings, which killed 190 people, and Spain’s security services, and shortcomings in the police investigation. Señor Suárez Trashorras and two other men implicated in the bombings have already been identified as police informers.

You do not decide about the notability of these facts, Igor21. The Times decided publishing this article.

Igor21 wrote: what in the hell are doing these two nobody in the introduction of an article of such importance

These two nobody are listed among the perpetrators .

Maybe they are "somebody", after all. Randroide 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Telling the whole story is precisely what the existing text does not do. Faced with blanket opposition from someone whose sole criteria for judging the quality of the article is the extent to which it reflects his narrow political agenda, all we can do is make a nonsensical opening paragraph slightly less nonsensical. I suggest the following:

"The perpetrators were Islamist extremists (mostly of North African origin) assisted in the procurement of the explosives by a group of Spanish nationals including convicted explosives traffickers and police informers." Southofwatford 10:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Southofwatford in every single word.--Igor21 12:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That text of yours is a constructive and well thought proposal, worth discussing and improving, Southofwatford.

Please delete your personal attack against me mixed with that proposal and then we´ll talk. Please stop talking about editors and start talking about facts related to the article. Thank you. Randroide 13:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Randroide answer to Igor21

My "aberrations", Igor21, are sourced: They are facts.

The facts about the Madrid bombings are aberrant: Accept it and you´ll be much happier. I will add new sourced aberrations in the future, you like it or not. Your net contribution to the en:Misplaced Pages is a negative one, as I prove below. I do not even regard you as an editor.

Part of the Spanish Police does not buy the Official Explanation. Please see Spanish Police Union CEP ("Confederación Española de Policía") media interventions doubting the Indictment. The CEP also supported "Peones Negros" demonstrations.

The revelations that are appearing in the trial point just to the opposite of what you said. I´ll insert those revelations in the future, be sure about it.

Igor21 wrote: absurd theories like what Randroide embedded against the will of the other editors who were respecting the rules

You?. You "respecting the rules"?. Southofwatford "respecting the rules"?

Sorry, but you crossed a line about what nonsense I am going to endure from you, Igor21. Here it is the complete report about you and Southofwatford "respecting the rules":

HERE´S THE REPORT:

• Southofwatford
  • New sources inserted into the article by Southofwatford: One
  • Notable edits by Southofwatford: Watch out this edit: Southofwatford reintroduces unsourced blocks of text and typos, deletes sourced text and even restores a nonfunctional image, all in one single edit. Four sources deleted in a single edit

• Randroide (me)

• New sources inserted into the article by Randroide (me): Sixty five sources in forty five edits See here the relevant diffs.
• Sources deleted by Randroide (me): None.
• Unsourced statements pasted into the article by Randroide (me): None

ABOUT Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings

The article was tagged as "unsourced" in August 2006 .

Southofwatford tagged the article as "total dispute" in September 2006 , with the purpose (his own words) of providing a light level of protection .

In January 2007 I, Randroide, tagged +50 unsourced blocks of text

The subsequent discussion with Southofwatford is here: This is the place to see how far you can go with discussion and consensus with Southofwatford, even in a clear-cut issue as the deletion of unsourced text.

In February 2007 I, Randroide, hided the unsourced statements

Southofwatford reintroduced the +50 blocks of unsourced text, thrice

• Unsourced statements pasted into the article by Randroide (me): None.

ABOUT UserIgor21

• New sources inserted into 2004 Madrid train bombings by Igor21: One
• Sources deleted by Igor21: Fourteen Ten sources deleted in a single edit
• Personal attacks by Igor21 (non exhaustive list):
  • I am "mad" , I should be blocked forever , I have "paranoid threats" (!), I am in a state "of mental confusion and fluctuating consciousness" (!?) , I am a simulator , I am part of a "very small group of right winged fanatics" , I am a simulator , I use "poisonous" (or "toxic" ) sources, and Igor21 has nothing to talk with me , I am a "fanatic conspirationist" . I cheated Durova and I am a "Filibuster"
  • El Mundo (Spain) -the second general information newspaper in Spain- is a "vomiting source of nauseating lies" and "a libelous t**d" , not acceptable as a source
• Igor21´s positions on WP:NPOV:

"Open your eyes, Wales is objectivist and takes Rand´s crap as a coherent philosophy. It is sad, but revealing about where he finds his epistemological rubbish about his definition of NPOV" SPANISH

This is the Misplaced Pages´s foolishness. It is clear that some sources are more credible than others, but NPOV won't allow to remove lying sources and forces to publish them with the others. SPANISH

Randroide 11:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Randroide : I love your HTML pages but this is not the question here. The question here es that you have cherrypicked some cites to create a misleading introduction to an article. This introduction is libeling Spanish police and you introduced it while the article was on rest as was decided.

Regarding breaking the rules, perhaps I am a little enfatic in my comments but I have never destroyed a full article to emebed it with conspirationist theories against the will of the majority of editors as you did with this article during Christmas 2006. And Southofwatford has always shown to you a respect that you do not deserve after all you have done to him and the rest of editors. Your CV here is the CV of a fanatic activist who never accepts anything except his own obsessions and that uses Misplaced Pages rules as an on-purpose arsenal to carry on your plans.--Igor21 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I added not a single "conspirationist theory" to the article, Igor21. You are starting to deplete my patience with your unfounded claims against me. Show the (nonexistant) diff sof me doing that or please shut *** **** up.

AFAIAC you and Southofwatford are not editors: Your global contribution to the en:Misplaced Pages is firmly in the red (destruction of sourced data, introduction of unsourced c**p), as I just proved with your own diffs. You even explicitly rejected NPOV. I am not going to waste more time with both of you. You add your (sourced) stuff and I add my (sourced) stuff. Other issues with both of you outside this simple recipe are going to be treated at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. That´s it.Randroide 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your contribution is clear in the current introduction to the article : some misleading cites to make people think that Spanish police was involved. And yes, Southofwatford and me are blocked here discussing nonsense with you for 8 months now instead of finishing the article and then going to do another. So please, stop wasting time with us and go to 9/11 article where people know how to deal with conspirationists like you. --Igor21 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Randroide, how you choose to deal with other editors is entirely your affair, but let me make one thing quite clear - it cannot be permitted that your free choice on that matter has any effect on the ability of anyone else to work on this article. Who you choose to consider editors or not is of no interest to anyone except yourself. Your threats will be treated in the same way as all your other multiple threats and bullying over the last few months. If your only way of dealing with a dispute is to try and provoke circumstances that allow you go whingeing to admiinistrators then that is also your own free choice. There is probably still an administrator somewhere on the English Misplaced Pages who you have not pestered at some point in your attempts to get action taken against those who have the cheek to have disagreed with Randroide. Arrogance is no substitute for argument. Southofwatford 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration?

Since y'all seem at loggerheads, perhaps the time has come to submit this to arbitration?--Mantanmoreland 14:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I submitted an arbitration request a few weeks ago and it was not accepted - frankly I'm not convinced that the Misplaced Pages system can get to grips with this dispute. Southofwatford 14:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another RfC? I do believe I was the only editor responding to the RfC. It would be helpful to have other editors viewing the article and offering comments.--Mantanmoreland 14:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against the idea, but it is the case that only you and one other editor intervened on the last one - the general problem here I think is that most editors who look at it are not familiar enough with what is going on to intervene easily. BTW, we have made some progress on amending the opening paragraph - see above. Southofwatford 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If so, that is lost amid the back-and-forth.--Mantanmoreland 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Southofwatford 15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"The perpetrators were Islamist extremists (mostly of North African origin) assisted in the procurement of the explosives by a group of Spanish nationals including convicted explosives traffickers and police informers."

So? All agreed on this? Is this factually accurate and not misleading? --Mantanmoreland 15:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is misleading because the explosives trafikkers were a pasive element and the fact that time to time they have leaked things to the police has nothing to do. The key person in the bombing is the one who gather the group together and show them the videos from Bin Laden and told in which websites they can learn how to s, etc... Once the whole thing was planned they look for explosives and then contacted the explosives traffikers to whom they have been providing hashish. But I am quite tired of discussing this so you can put this phrase which is non sense but less non sense than the current one. --Igor21 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC) The reason nobody comes here is because everybody in wikipedia is sick of discussing with conspirationists. They are intelectually dishonest, they are not constrained by truth and many of them are indefatigable. A strict policy against them is the only way of making wikipedia a place atractive to normal people who like to write truth instead of inventing it.

I think what might be bugging you is the length of space devoted in that sentence to the non-Islamic extremists, whereas the Spanish nationals were just hoods who provided the explosives. Why not make it read as follows:

"The perpetrators were Islamist extremists, mostly of North African origin. Spanish nationals who provided the explosives were also arrested."

How's that?--Mantanmoreland 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Awful. You are dropping The Times article data about the links of the perpetrators with the Spanish police . Moreover: It is against Misplaced Pages policies, because it requires to delete sourced content. Moreover, the confidents also provided automatic weapons, not only the explosives.

And, well, once we are at it: It should be mentioned that the alleged perpetrators were linked with the Spanish Police, that is a claim made in the article I provided above and that is not in the current text. Randroide 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Much, much better. Thanks for your effort.

And if more detail must be provided something like "the perpetrators were minor criminals (hashish smuglers) enroled in the yihad by an islamist fanatic related with some networks of muslim extremism." This part is important because implied a change of tactics in muslim extremism that started with these bombing a new tactic i.e. the use of ad-hoc trained amateur militants who finance the operation themselfs instead of using full time activist with heavy training in Afghanistan camps and financed from main Al-Aqeda accounts, as was done in 9/11. This was the reaction to the thorough destruction of Al Qaeda infraestracture carried out by USA after 9/11 with the invasion of Afghanistan, CIA covered operations and NSA full monitoring of their comunications. But we do not need to say all this in the introduction.--Igor21 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are your sources, Igor21?. If you provide sources, it´s fine for me. Randroide 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. You're welcome. Southofwatford, any objections to my changing the sentence? (P.S. On conspiracy theories, you should check out some financial articles I edit and you'll see some real beauts.)--Mantanmoreland 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its fine, it gets rid of this confusion between those who carried out the bombings and those who were involved in supplying the explosives used. I will support this. Southofwatford 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok Randroide : so you come back to your sheep mode. As you know I have given sources for this to you for eight months so please do not insult inteligence of the readers of your comments. For the benefit of people just arriving and potentially interested in this. the reference academic source is Bruce Hoffman and a more broad public source, you can buy "The one percent doctrine" from Pulitzer price Ron Suskind where there are interviews of CIA operatives and a full analisis about 11-March bombing in the context of extremists islamists activities worldwide. These sources for me are better than the outdated nonsense you normally use for your fabrications. (like the stupid thing of the phone number or the aberrations about the Leganes incident that were yesterday commented in-extenso in the trial).--Igor21 12:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you object to the sentence, Igor? Didn't mean to leave you out. Anyone else?--Mantanmoreland 13:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, well the voting (so to speak) is 1 to 1. I don't see a consensus here for changing the lead, or leaving it as it is. I'd suggest someone ask for additional input via an RfC, and/or to ask for an arbitration if there is continued edit warring.--Mantanmoreland 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with the sentence above in 19:19 21st March. --Igor21 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, msybe 2-1 with Randroide disagreeing. However, this is not a "vote" and a consensus should be reached.--Mantanmoreland 00:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please ask for the RfC, Mantamoreland?. "Old timers" here are (I assume about Igor21 and Southofwatford) too "burned" to do it. Do it for us, please. Randroide 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oookay. But do me a favor and stop by Mission San Xavier del Bac. A far too short article about a beautiful church, founded during your country's sojourn in the southwest.--Mantanmoreland 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted an RfC. That does not guarantee a response. If there is a resumption in edit warring you may want to have an arbitration. Just don't name me as a party as I am not a regular editor of this page and don't want to be.--Mantanmoreland 00:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the current version of the introduction, I think it's essentially fine as it is, the only change I would suggest would be to differentiate between the Islamic extremists and the police informants, between those who actually planned and carried out the attack and those who merely provided the explosives, etc. Parsecboy 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my first reaction too. But some editors believe it gives undue weight to the "police informant" aspect. Unfortunately, every time the subject is discussed, it gets dragged down in interpersonal back-and-forth.--Mantanmoreland 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. The source Randroide provided clearly states that several of the accomplices were police informants, and the source is, in my opinion, pretty reputable. If the Spanish accomplices were simple farmers, they would be labeled as such; I don't see what the peoblem with keeping the "police informants" bit. It doesn't, in my opinion, state anything about the conspiracy theories. I don't see why it has to constantly devolve into as hominems. Parsecboy 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the regular editors of this article have to understand that to a person coming in from the outside, this reads like a comprehensive and comparatively neutral article. One thing that happened was that two entire sections ("controversies" and something else) were spun out to their own separate articles as part of this edit warring. I think that was a mistake.--Mantanmoreland 03:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I come back to my original question, why is is important to mention they are police informers, and not apparently important to mention that they are also convicted explosives traffickers? I would have thought the latter has greater relevance to a case where trains have been blown up with stolen explosives. Although the reason why any of this data has to be in the opening paragraph to the article escapes me. I need someone to explain to me why the condition of police informer, not infrequent in criminal circles, is more important than a host of other details about those accused. Southofwatford 07:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking us back to the original issue; I was not aware that they were previously convicted explosives smugglers. From the discussions I have read above, it seemed they were only hashish smugglers. I would agree that is more important than them being police informants. I also agree with Mantanmoreland; the controversies and reactions sections can't be a to the main article. The sections need at least a paragraph summing up the main article. Parsecboy 11:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Look Southofwatford: If you have a source saying that the guys were explosives traffickers I see no problem adding that piece of information. I never oppose the addition of new sourced information.

On the other hand: I see a BIG problem deleting the fact that they were also police confidents with links (that phone number) with the Spanish EOD squad, and I see a BIG problem for these reasons:

• The facts are sourced, and well sourced.
• "The Times" saw the issue relevant enough as to write an article focused on those facts. Notability is established by third parties ("media"), not by us, humble Misplaced Pages editors.

BTW, to whom sold the explosives previously?. How is possible that previously convicted explosives smugglers were guarding explosives?. Randroide 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never proposed deleting the sources, I just don't think the introductory paragraph is the place for these, because to give a balanced account we now need to add additional information - and the resulting paragraph will just grow to a level of detail inappropriate for the first paragraph of the article. With all the sources available now we can provide all sorts of details about the accused and I can use your argument for inserting all of these with accompanying text into the opening paragraph of the article. I just don't happen to think its a good idea. Southofwatford 13:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They were not guarding explosives, they stolen from a mine as they have done in the past. In Asturias was very common to traffik with explosives since there are many small mines without proper procedures for controlling it. It were used for fhishing and for small earth movements. We can go as in depth on this as everybody wants since now the whole thing is known because we have the trial on TV daily and the misteries fall one by one.

BTW,yesterday I spent a lot of time in El Mundo website and it must be said that they have pulled out the majority of the conspirationist material. They have a section devoted to the bombings and the trial that is currently being carried on and they explain things exactly as the "official version". All the suspicions about these caracters have been completely removed and now they appear as what they are without anymore insinuations of them being "directed" by the police in any sense. I thing is significant the if the main source for conspiracy theory has left the boat, we continue here discussing this and that Randroide keeps insisting in includint insinuations that El Mundo has given up. The only place were some conspirationist issues remain is in a small section called "Key of 11 March" were explains the official version in full but at some point loosey alludes to the the discussion about the nature of the explosive and also says that the 13th bomb was "allegedly" taken out from the trains. Whoever read today El Mundo website would think that they agree completely with judiciary. So we must be careful with dates of the sources because now the trial has completely changed landscape and all the misteries are being solved so the owner of El Mundo has decided to let to hang to dry the conspirationists and come back to the mainstream once auditions on the trial have made his position untenable. I suggest Randroide to think about it before carry on with his now so lonely battle to maintain English Misplaced Pages as the last redoubt of conspirationism.--Igor21 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Igor21 wrote: El Mundo has given up......Whoever read today El Mundo website would think that they agree completely with judiciary......the owner of El Mundo has decided to let to hang to dry the conspirationists and come back to the mainstream

You are wrong, Igor21. Totally wrong. I understand you because the paper version of "El Mundo" is rather different to the online version. "El Mundo" always reserves the best stuff for the paper version (I understand them).

Plase listen to Pedro J. Ramírez saying clearly that the "current government version" (I trying very hard to use neutral language) is very doubtful.

In this audio file you can also hear this line uttered by Pedro J. Ramírez (at the beginning of the last third of the file):

"I do not know what happened in 3/11, I maintain no alternative Conspiracy Theory ......but I say that the evidence prevents to accept the current explanation as a logic one"

You can still beat a dead horse calling him (and me) "Conspiracy theorists" if that gives you kicks and giggles. But it is a dead horse, Igor21, and beating a dead horse is not rational.

Southofwatford wrote: because to give a balanced account we now need to add additional information - and the resulting paragraph will just grow to a level of detail inappropriate for the first paragraph of the article

Uh, you are worried about style. Nice. Do not worry: I can assure you that ALL the relevant data (and the condition of police confidents of these guys was relevant enough to deserve an specific article at "The Times") can be integrated in a fluid first block of text.

Again: You do not decide about the level of detail: Sources decide, and "The Times" decided.

BTW: There should also be mentioned that these guys were not oly confidents, but alse that they were linked to the Spanish Police Bomb Squad, as "The Times" stated. Randroide 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the article as a whole, I simply don't get a sense that conspiracy theories are given any weight in this article. Personally I despise conspiracy theories of all kinds, and I am sensitive to that kind of thing. I don't see it. I also am not persuaded that the current version gives undue weight to any conspiracy theory. I remain troubled by the removal of two significant sections that are important for the casual reader.

I also request, for benefit of newcomers, that the regular editors please keep down the noise level and stop trading personal comments back and forth. The constant bickering makes it very difficult to follow the thread of conversations. --Mantanmoreland 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mantamoreland, we have a problem with WP:Size. Which other section do you suggest to cut out?. Any other solution?. The article was too long before Southofwatford and me pruning it. Randroide 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. You have the separate articles. All you need to add is a paragraph or two in the two sections.--Mantanmoreland 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland : You do not see the conspirationist threads because you are not familiar neither with what really happened nor with what the conspirationists said that happened. Randroide embedded some obsessions of the conspirationist while removing the evidence against these theories.

The bigest presence of conspiracy theories in the article is in what does not say. Now everything is known and it is posible to explain the whole story from the moment that the fanatic man related with islamic networks started the recruiting of minor criminals until they commit suicide in Leganes.

However in the Responsability section, Randroide has built a kind of intrincated maze as if it were an issue subject of debate where were many opinions. All this section should be erased and written again with the simple known truth.

You can see other traces of conspirationism in the fact that the word "ETA" is in each section (in some of them many times) without any reason to be. We have already spoken about introduction and the reason why Randroide insists so much with "police informants" in the introduction is because in the imaginary conspiracy, the police helped ETA to do the bombings. Also the suicide of the terrorist -who all home for a farewell- is called the "apparent suicide" because Randroide thinks that the police killed the guys for doing a cover up of his own responsability.

So the conspiracy theories are spoiling the article because are impeding to explain flatly what happened and are forcing to use cloudy expresions to not say neither lies nor truth. This is the reason to separate both narratives because when mixed as now, very little information comes out.

Regarding Randroide's comments about what El Mundo in Spanish we say : "there is no worst blind that the one who do not want to see". It is clear that Pedro J is leaving the boat as Del Burgo did before and nearly everybody has done except a handful of fanatics with nowhere to go.

BTW, I am fully against the chopping of the article, specially if is conceived as a way to each one puting his ideas. Randroide is a conpirationist and the question stands : what to do with conspirationist theories??? allow them to be mixed in the main article as now (watered down but present)? separate them in a subarticle? or including them in Reactions section?. This is the question that must be adressed and all the rest is evading the question.--Igor21 17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is anything in the article now that you find objectionable, why not cite it here, specifically. Abstract objections are difficult to follow.

I think that conspiracy theories can be lumped under a section entitled "Alternate theories", which is neutral language. --Mantanmoreland 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

what to do with conspirationist theories??? allow them to be mixed in the main article as now (watered down but present)? separate them in a subarticle? or including them in Reactions section?.

"Alternate theories" strikes me as more specific than "Reactions." No, they should not be "mixed in," but I am not persuaded they currently are.--Mantanmoreland 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To Mantamoreland: Maybe you, as the provervial neutral third party, are the right person to write the brief texts to the redirection to the chopped sections. I ask you to, please, do it.

"Alternate theories" is totally incorrect. There are no alternate theories (and any person saying the opposite should source his/her statement properly, a difficult task, indeed). There are only objections to the so-called "Official version". Yes, Pedro J. Ramírez used this expression: Hear the aforelinked audio files for reference, and he´s the founder and CEO of El Mundo (Spain). That´s for notability.

I suggest this text:

There is a dispute about several key elements of the 2004 Madrid train bombings... blah, blah

Note that I carefully avoid the Scylla (for me) of the expression "Conspiracy theories" or "Alternative explanations" and the Charybdis (for Igor21 and Southofwatford) of the expression "unclear issues" or "unexplained facts".

To Igor21: Sorry, but you provided no sources, so you said nothing. Happy dead horse beating about me being a "Conspiracy theorist". Randroide 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mantanmoreland : I wrote the Spanish version who someone translated to English and Randroide destroyed (BTW Spanish conspirationists destroyed too the Spanish version). I am eager to write it again if necesary because now much more facts are known. However I do not want to write it three or four times so the first thing is to set up the frame. If you tell me that we are already writing then we start discussing point by point. We have already agreed in the phrase for introduction so we can put it instead of what is now. Then we can carry on saying which explosives were used, removing ETA completely and some other things.

Reactions is the true section for conspiracy theories since the creation of all these theories is a reaction of some people and has nothing with what happened in reality (ETA was not involved, this "police informers" were not acting as infiltrated policemen, etc...). Reactions is the section were in 9/11 article you wil found the theories about WTC demolished by FBI and CIA.

Randroide : If you put on the text "police informants" instead of "explosives trafffikers", you put ETA as many times as you can, you discuss the explosives not believing the report of the experts, you do not believe that the 13th bomb was real, you think that the suicidal in Leganes was a murder done by the police, etc... then you are a conspirationist (or an alternativist or whatever you want to call yourself) as the people who in 9/11 say that the WTC fall faster than it should or say that in the Pentagon there was not plane, are. --Igor21 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who pitched in on the Mission article. That is my "charitable cause of the week," a nice noncontroversial article that needs to be lengthened. If I was a sadist I'd have pointed to one of several articles I sometimes edit that are even much hotter than this one. I think that we seem to be moving closer to a consensus on this one here.--Mantanmoreland 20:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To Igor21:

• The guys were police informants. It´s not my fault if I point to that sourced fact. If you want to add more sourced facts about those guys is fine with me.

• ETA is mentioned by several sources about the Madrid bombings. Every reference to ETA added by me is supported by one of these sources. Again, not my fault.

• The explosives issue is a mess of sourced contradictory information (Tytadine, C4, Goma-2 ECO....). Again, not my fault. I´ll paste in the article a sourced account about what experts said.

• I never pasted into the article my private thinking about Leganés (my thinking about the issue, BTW, is irrelevant), but what sources said about that event. Yes: "Apparent suicide explosion". Verbatim BBC words.

• Finally: If you want to do it, Igor21, I kindly invite you to check my hundreds of diffs to this article. If you find me inserting any unsourced line, please delete that line on sight. I am going to save you a lot of job: Such line does not exist. I carefully wrote all my texts inserted into the article based exactly upon what sources said.

I am a doubter of the Official Version, Igor21. If you want to call me doubter, that´s fine.

To Mantanmoreland: Thank you for your work here. I hope you wont be "burned" by this article. You are playing an important role here. Randroide 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Using sources properly to not spread mid-truths or plain lies

I have restored the introduction of the article to its original meaning and to the meaning that fits more with the overwhelming number of sources. I justify as follows.

We have been discussing if it is relevant to say in the introduction that two of the Spanish people involved in the suplying of the explosives were police informers. Randroide considers this as very important and he puts in the introduction of the article against the will of all the other editors. The he entrenched and calls to his use wikipedia rules again and again.

The reason for this is that he intendents to show that the Spanish police was accomplice of the bombings and to insinuate (since he cannot present any conclusive evidence) that Spanish police somehow controled the operation using these informers. If we analize the sources provided by him we found that the first one is an article from The Times

This article is the one that Randroide used to stop Mantanmorelan from remove the references to "police informers" and is the one that he uses rutinarily to insist that international media found relevant the fact. This the key of his entrenchment since the only article that gives relevance to the fact being the others just a "who is who" in the bombings were all aspects of each person are said. The Times article is about an alleged conection between the supliers of the dynamite and the EOD squad, Mr. Manzano. The funny thing is that El Mundo has in his website the answer to this "mistery". The judge in person, rang to the phone number and it happened to be the operative phone of a different policeman who uses "Manzano" (a common Spanish family name) as nickname for contacting informers.

So we can savely remove the The Times source because speculates about something that was revealed false.

Let's see the other four and how Randroide manipulated them

In this one there is an explanation of all the accused. It is said that one of the men were a police informer but do not give to this any importance regarding the case.

This one says that this informer "did not inform about the bombings" emphazising the irrelevance of the question.

it says that one of the suppliers was an "informant of small hashish and pills sellings" who speaks with a captain of Guardia Civil and that another "was an informant about guns, explosives and drugs traffik" to the National Police (a separate corps). So in reality this article makes clear the irrelevance of the fact since both were minor informers and this quality of informers is not related with the bombings.

And finally, the link that supposedly supported the second paragraph, "It is the only terrorist act in history, according to the European Strategic Intelligence And Security Center, where non-Muslims collaborated with Muslims" in reality says all the opposite. What the article says is what is said below in the reference list. Randroide manipulated the text above and to cover-up put the real text below. The article was written six days after the bombings and basically expresses the conviction that was a purely muslim bombing.

So Randroide created an aparience by mixing some sources cherrypicked as he is always doing.

Just to be in the safe side I add 15 sources that say the same that the current and original text plus the opinion of Bruce Hoffman that I tried to include previoulsy.

So I remove a single source (I justified the removing by showing that El Mundo in person knows the solution to the supposed enigma) and with the remaining Randroide sources correctly interpreted plus my 16 sources, I completely justify the new (in fact the original) introduction and the sheer irrelevance of the fact that two of the Spanish nationals have acted time to time as informers as many criminals do at some point of their criminal carreers. --Igor21 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reads fine to me. But twenty footnotes? Must be some kind of record.--Mantanmoreland 22:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Big time Non sequitur (logic), Igor21. You proved nothing false. Futher removals of "The Times" articles will be treated as vandalism.

OTOH, congratulations for adding new sources. Could you please improve the format?. You know, adding titles, tyding up code... Randroide 08:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Splendid work Randroide, now we have another conspiracy theorist favourite in the opening paragraph of the article. I'm sure that all neutral observers will agree that the new reference you have added is absolutely essential for the opening paragraph of an encyclopaedia article on the Madrid bombings, and is key to understanding the issues! Your unwillingness to find appropriate places in the article for this sort of information is going to end up destroying it, and this is just further evidence that adding sources is not the same as improving the article. By the way, removing content with the intention of improving the article is not vandalism, when you finally get round to reading the rules you cite so often at others you will have understood that. Southofwatford 08:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed Spain articles
• Unknown-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• Unassessed Disaster management articles
• Unknown-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class rail transport articles
• Mid-importance rail transport articles
• All WikiProject Trains pages