Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 11

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [1]

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

Bomb squad link in Spanish blasts[2]Randroide 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1][2][3][4] It is the only terrorist act in history, according to the European Strategic Intelligence And Security Center, where non-Muslims collaborated with Muslims.[5]"

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. To Randroide that doesn't matter, as long as he has his sources included. Southofwatford 10:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Then how about changing the sentence to read as follows:

"The perpetrators were local Islamic extremists and two Spanish nationals.[1][2][3][4] It is the only terrorist act in history, according to the European Strategic Intelligence And Security Center, where non-Muslims collaborated with Muslims.[5]"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [3]

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 [4].

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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:Wikipedia 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 [5]
- 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 [6].

Southofwatford tagged the article as "total dispute" in September 2006 [7], with the purpose (his own words) of providing a light level of protection [8].

In January 2007 I, Randroide, tagged +50 unsourced blocks of text [9][10]

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 [11]

Southofwatford reintroduced the +50 blocks of unsourced text, thrice [12][13][14]

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

ABOUT UserIgor21

New sources inserted into 2004 Madrid train bombings by Igor21: One [15]
Sources deleted by Igor21: Fourteen [16]Ten sources deleted in a single edit
Personal attacks by Igor21 (non exhaustive list):
- I am "mad" [17], I should be blocked forever [18], I have "paranoid threats" (!)[19], I am in a state "of mental confusion and fluctuating consciousness" (!?) [20], I am a simulator [21][22], I am part of a "very small group of right winged fanatics" [23], I am a simulator [24], I use "poisonous" (or "toxic" [25]) sources, and Igor21 has nothing to talk with me [26], I am a "fanatic conspirationist" [27]. I cheated Durova [28] and I am a "Filibuster" [29]
- El Mundo (Spain) -the second general information newspaper in Spain- is a "vomiting source of nauseating lies" and "a libelous t**d" [30], not acceptable as a source [31][32][33][34][35]
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 Wikipedia´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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia rules as an on-purpose arsenal to carry on your plans.--Igor21 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. That´s it.Randroide 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Arbitration?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Here it is: [36] Southofwatford 15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

Awful. You are dropping The Times article data about the links of the perpetrators with the Spanish police [37]. Moreover: It is against Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia as the last redoubt of conspirationism.--Igor21 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In this [39] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [40]

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.[41]

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

[42] 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.

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

[44] 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. [45]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for your compliments, Southofwatford. I knew you would like the reference to the Spanish policeman linked to the phones allegedly used in the attacks.

removing content with the intention of improving the article is not vandalism

If you really think that, you could act accordingly and, afterwards, utter that line to the judge. And who is the judge?: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I suggest you to do not follow this path, really. Randroide 09:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what I think: "significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.". Here's the source [[46]]. I am quite happy to utter that line to the judge. Southofwatford 10:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the rejection of your (pseudo)arguments for deleting a significant source: You are the guys saying that "El Mundo" is not a good source (dozens of your edits saying that in your histories). Now you propose to delete a "The Times" article using "El Mundo" as a source to prove "The Times" is wrong. It would be interesting to see what the judge thinks about this. I hope we will not go so far, but the choice is yours. Randroide 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clear misreprentation of my position, I have neither argued that the Times source should be deleted, or that it should be replaced with one from El Mundo - more conspiracy theorist invention. I do argue that the question of the police informants is not significant enough to feature in the opening paragraph of the article, or if it does it should be balanced by hundreds of equally significant details. The latest additional detail on the liberation of the phones used in the bombs should really be balanced by including the profession, hair colour and marital status of all witnesses in the case - because that is all this (former) policeman is...one witness in almost 700. Southofwatford 12:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southofwatford wrote (commenting my readition of the Times source) "removing content with the intention of improving the article is not vandalism" [47]

Southofwatford wrote (two hours later): I have neither argued that the Times source should be deleted [48]

I kindly suggest you to take a nap, Southofwatford. IMHO you are sleep deprived, and that´s the cause of those contradictory posts of yours.

Oh, and I am not happy with al-Qaida being cited at all in this article. You know why?. Because the al-Qaida involvement is controversial, and you kindly segregated the controversies in to a separate article [49]. All references to al-Qaida should go to Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Randroide 12:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain it to you patiently Randroide, the principle cause of your confusion is your frequent habit of taking words out of context. An addiction to diffs and very selective use of sources is probably a cause of this. I was explaining in the first quote that the Wikipedia rules do not consider removal of content with the intention of improving thae article to be vandalism, thats all - no specific reference to the Times source. The second phrase you quote was in direct response to your invention. So no contradiction, just an intention on your part to try and twist other peoples words until you get the meaning you want from them. I agree that all controversial issues should be dealt with more thoroughly in the Controversies, that has always been my position - the police informers issue is also a controversial issue for some, an irrelevant issue for some others, and a chance to speculate and insinuate on unproven connections for a few others. Hair colour of the accused is less controversial, that could stay in the introductory paragraph as long as we can agree on the colour descriptions. Southofwatford 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I am addicted to diffs. You do not have this "problem".

Look, Southofwatford: The controversial nature of an issue is not decided by editors, but by sources.

al-Qaida involvement is a controversial issue. Has been asserted and denied by different sources (see introduction).
Police informers (and a policeman) involved in the attacks is a NON-controversial issue, unless you can produce a source stating that there were NO police informers among the perpetrators.

It´s not editors´ say so, Southofwatford: It is the sources editors can (or can not) produce that define what is controversal and what is not.

You made a big issue of separating "Controversies", Southofwatford. You should be happy about sending there all controversial claims, and that includes claims of al-Qaida involvement Randroide 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody said the references to al-Qeda should go from the article. I would oppose that because it is well-sourced, as with the Times Online article.[50]. I also favor keeping in "Spain" after Madrid because that is Wikipedia style. True, most will not confuse Madrid, Spain with Madrid, New Mexico, but that is the style. I would implore the three primary editors on this page to please tone down the personal character of their arguments, because it makes it hard for an outsider to follow the thread of discussion. I simply don't have time to read through posts that are 80% personal.--Mantanmoreland 14:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged al-Qaida involvement is a controversial issue, so it should go to the specific article about "Controversies", i.e. :Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

If not: Please inform me about the exact "cutting point" for "Controversies" and its rationale, i.e., which "Controversies" should be in the main article, which ones should NOT, and, most important, why.

I agree with you about the Madrid, Spain issue. Randroide 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Controversies section should be reserved for issues that need to be removed from the main part of the article so as to not give undue weight. If it is generally accepted that al Qeda was involved, according to reliable sources, then opponents of that theory would be in the Controversies section. The Times Online article indicates to me that it is generally accepted that Qeda was involved. Am I jumping to conclusions from the Times Online article? --Mantanmoreland 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT "generally accepted that al Qeda was involved". It WAS generally accepted that al Qeda was involved, so please watch out to the dates of the "pro" and "against" articles. I paste the references below.

I know this is a nightmarish maze of contradictory information, but this is it: Welcome to the 2004 Madrid train bombings article, Mantamoreland.

Randroide 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources on al-Qaeda involvement

Since this is an important issue, perhaps we can segregate this out and post here factual summaries of the reliable sources for and against. I know, this has been discussed to death, but the argument is intertwined with personal invective and is impossible to follow. Please humor me and do this.

I'll start.

Sources saying involved

Times online article. "The al-Qaeda leader who created, trained and directed the terrorist cell that carried out the Madrid train bombings has been held in a CIA “ghost prison” for more than a year." [51].

Sources saying not involved

Al Qaeda, Madrid bombs not linked: Spanish probe. This is an "Igor21 approved source": Igor21 provided [52] this "borrul.org" site as a source. I found this article there. Thank you, Igor21.
The Independent article: "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."
Madrid Bombing Suspect Denies Guilt, The New York Times, February 15, 2007: The cell was inspired by al-Qaida but had no direct links to it, nor did it receive financing from Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization, Spanish investigators say.

Enough is enough

Randroide : As a Spanish speaker and as a person who has being factoring theories and manipulating sources for more than two years, you perfectly know that the The Times article is wrong and that the El Mundo article makes it superfluous. And you also perfectly know that the other guy has nothing to do.

I BRING SIXTEEN SOURCES TO SHOW THIS. HOW MANY YOU NEED?

Stop thinking that everybody is idiot. Try to push your conspiracies theories with respect. I bring 16 sources to show that the fact that some of the suppliers of the explosives were informers to different branches of the police is completely irrelevant. Stop vandalizing, stop cheating, stop lying.

The bombing was done by islamists, not by Spanish police and we must learn to live with this and stop involving wikipedia in your paranoiae.--Igor21 16:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igor, can you please provide sourcing showing that the Times article is wrong? Were there subsequent Times articles that corrected it? Subsequent articles in other publications equally authoritative? You guys may have these articles committed to memory but I don't.--Mantanmoreland 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making worse and worse your case as a personal attacker, Igor21. I am afraid that you are not going to stop this behaviour. And now, a clear cut violation of WP:AGF.

One of your "16" sources says (borrul.org, vide supra) that al-Qaida was not involved. What about that?.

Plase note that the "al-Qaida involvement" WAS a fact, but not longer, so please note the dates on your sources.

Not paying attention to the dates would lead us to conclude that ETA perpetrated the attacks, because, you know?, there as United Nations resolution saying that ETA did it [53]. Of course that this information is obsolete, as obsolete as most of your "16" sources. Randroide 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad you raised the subject of ETA, Randroide, because they are all over this article and yet there is not a single piece of credible evidence linking them to the bombings - so before Al Qaeda references go anywhere we have a much stronger candidate for moving. By the way, the trial is raising interesting further issues of Al Qaeda involvement so there is no suggestion that the issue was settled some time ago. Your statement that controversy is only decided by sources is what I call a "Randroide rule", something you invent on the spur of the moment to suit your political convenience. Editors make decisions about articles, their structure and their content, if they don't the result is a mess. Your increasingly dogmatic attempt to impose your will on those who dare to disagree with you is turning this article into a mess. Southofwatford 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide : I do not know which kind fo people you socialize IRL but do not asume that everybody here is idiot as you always do. You perfectly know that the issue of Al Qaeda is not the point. The point is your obsesion of making appear ETA and Spanish police as the perpetrator of the bombings and the cover-up.

Mantanmoreland : This issue of the phone number of Manzano is so irrelevant, so old and so stupid that I do not think that there are any sources to put it down. The main evidence against is that if it were true it would have had a follow up somewere. In the article of El Mundo that I pointed in my refutation, it explains how the judge in person call the phone number and find out who was the one who answer. The mistery lasts about three days a year ago and only with a completely lack of honesty as Randroide bears, someone can intend to put this stupid anecdote in the introduction of the article as if were still unsolved. El Mundo speaks about this because they are in a phase of cleaning there face and they try to simulate that they were honest doubters that once solutions are being revealed, go to the official version.

To everybody : Is nobody going to stop this Randroide of doing all kind of misdoings? It is not enough that he puts a sources saying something HE KNOWS has been refuted??????.--Igor21 18:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southofwatford wrote: Well I'm glad you raised the subject of ETA, Randroide, because they are all over this article and yet there is not a single piece of credible evidence linking them to the bombings

Sources think otherwise. See my three last edits to ilustrate yourself a bit about the issue.

BTW, all references to ETA in the article are, of course, sourced. I removed all the unsourced statements on january, as you know.

If you wish, we can remove BOTH groups of references (ETA and al-Qaida) to "Controversies". In fact, we should move to "Controversies" the whole "Responsibility" section. Randroide 18:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last three sources come from an article effectively ascribing responsibility for the bombings to Al Qaeda, please explain to us why your use of that source emphasises ETA and does not make that clear? Pure, and sadly typical, abuse of sources. Southofwatford 18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can also tell us how many cases you know about of ETA using the combination of mobile phones and Goma 2 Eco? I know verifying allegations isn't your thing, but I was under the impression that this was not common practice for ETA? Southofwatford 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I inserted into the article the exact meaning of what the source said (check it, please). In my dictionary that´s NOT abuse of sources. Randroide 08:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source states quite clearly that the bombings were carried out by Islamists, you choose the only things in it that point to ETA and then try and pretend your edits represent the content of the source. It is a blatant and completely POV misrepresentation of the article cited. Southofwatford 13:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest to delete the reference to mobile phones and Goma 2 Eco as trademark of ETA due to a lack of external (outside the source) evidence?. Randroide 07:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no evidence that this is a trademark of ETA bombings, and the source provides none. I actually try to evaluate the information a source contains before I insert it, I don't just insert something because it suits my political prejudices. Southofwatford 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH your last three edits are great: You made the text more informative. Please stick with that kind of edits (edits adding sourced info) and we will make a still better article. Randroide 07:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are overwhelmingly POV and almost always in line with your political agenda. If I have no choice but to add information that balances the bias of the conspiracy theorist changes then that is what I will do. Quantity of sources evidently does not equate to quality of sources, and the article in my opinion is not improving at all. It's a disjointed, unbalanced and incoherent account and there seems to be nothing anyone can do about that. Southofwatford 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southofwatford wrote: If I have no choice but to add information that balances the bias of the conspiracy theorist changes then that is what I will do

If you think that there is a "bias" and a "conspiracy theory" (a thought I do not share), YOU WILL DO THE RIGHT THING adding new information to "balance" that "bias". I will never oppose that.

Yesterday you added new details to "my" added facts. You made the right thing. Today I went still further adding new details.

As long as we add only sourced details, everything will be fine. Balance is the result of presenting ALL the points of view. Randroide 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liying and libeling on purpose

Ok. Now we have a somoking gun. Randroide has restored twice [54] [55] a source that is refuted by 20 sources including three of his own [56]7 . He is libeling a Spanish police officer on purpose knowing that the accsuation is false. Are we going to accept this? are we continuing working as if nothing has happened? It is no time to call for admin help when a cheeky vandal is sistematically destroying the article to fit his conspirationist agenda?--Igor21 09:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Igor21. Please read Non sequitur (logic) (for your reasons for delete "The Times" article), WP:NPA and WP:AGF.

I think that there is no libel, but in an hypothetical scenario of a libel being present, the libelist would be "The Times" article you blanked thrice, not me. Randroide 10:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The libelist are YOU. When the article was written there were the question why the phone number of a person called Manzano was in the hands of the wife of Toro. Now you KNOW FOR SURE that it was the phone number of ANOTHER person. So you are posting something that YOU know is wrong to libel an Spanish police officer (and to cheat wikipedia admins abusing that many of them do not speak Spanish and do not know the insides of this case). There are no words for your cheekiness and dishonesty. --Igor21 16:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, for pete's sake, guys. Cut it out.--Mantanmoreland 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious issue here - including sources just because they support your political position and regardless of whether the information they contain is true or not is doing a huge disservice to Wikipedia. Taking selected quotes from a source that appear to back a certain position when the source itself asserts a contrary position is simply manipulative and deceitful. Rejecting later sources in favour of earlier ones because the earlier ones suit your position more is also intellectually dishonest. These are practices that do not form part of a serious attempt to improve an encyclopaedia article. Southofwatford 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that. But the serious issues are concealed by personal back and forth that makes it hard to extract the factual issues. That is why I asked that people place in a chart the sources for and against the al Qaeda issue, just to simplify matters. Nobody added to the one source that I put in, and instead the discussion just degenerated. It is very hard to follow the discussion on these talk pages. I've asked some experienced editors I know to come in and eyeball this very important article.--Mantanmoreland 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland : Before going for Al-Qaeda issue (which is certainly debatable) it must be stated what is not debatable at all (except by Randroide) :

-The bombing was done by Islamist extremists

-Spanish police do not help them but all the way round, the caught them.

-ETA do not help them

I put 20 sources saying this but it was useless. Read the introduction of the article today. Is a mess with a truthful begining followed by a long paragraph of conspirationism treating the Spanish police as accomplice of the bombings. Just tell me what should I do? let it as it is now knowing that is a bunch of lies? Revert again and going in trouble with the 3R (as Randroide is dreaming)? Lets concentrate in the introduction and try to put the truth without contamination. Just tell me how this can be achieved and I will follow you.--Igor21 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Igor21, read your own "rebuttal" source:

Del Olmo marcó personalmente el teléfono y le contestó un policía que investiga el caso a sus órdenes[57]

I understand that this policeman was working for Sánchez Manzano, so the telephone was, indeed, Manzano´s. In fact, "The Times" says that the telephone was Sanchez Manzano´s. Please note that your "rebuttal" is a day older that "The Times" article.Randroide 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide said : I understand that this policeman was working for Sánchez Manzano You perfectly know he was not since the article says so. It seems new people are coming. Save your tricks for them because you will certainly need after everything you have done. --Igor21 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You perfectly know he was not since the article says so

Sorry. With this line I am lost. Could you please develop this point, Igor21?. I am not omniscient and, even if you do not believe me, I am here in good faith. Please make your point. Thank you. Randroide 19:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plase re-examine what "The Times" (not part of the "evil conspirationist axis", AT LEAST UNTIL NOW) said (HTML added by me):

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, it emerged yesterday.

Emilio Suárez Trashorras, who is alleged to have supplied 200kg of dynamite used in the bombs, had obtained the number of Juan Jesús Sánchez Manzano, the head of Tedax.

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. Other members of the group had evaded police surveillance, despite concerns within the security services about their activities and evidence of their association with al-Qaeda.'

The telephone number of Señor Sánchez Manzano was contained in a Civil Guard dossier handed to Juan del Olmo, the investigating judge, at the National Court in Madrid. The number was written on a piece of paper found in the possession of Carmen Toro, the wife of Señor Suárez Trashorras. Both are in custody accused of supplying dynamite used in the Madrid bombs. [58]

Randroide 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So assuming this reliable source correctly summarizes the current situation, than this was a Qaeda-linked bombing in which there have been media reports saying blah blah. This is not an all or nothing situation. The aim is to reflect what the weight of reliable sources say. Just keep in mind that those "fresh concerns" were three years ago and may have been abandoned. If there were no further reports following up on that, an argument can be made that they should be omitted if the weight of sourcing is to the contrary. --Mantanmoreland 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The El Mundo source, despite being written by a leading proponent of the conspiracy theories, does in fact identify the policeman who answered the call as belonging to a different branch of the police than Sanchez Manzano. How much weight should be given to the Times source even if it is true? It demonstrates nothing, not even a "link"; that word so beloved of those who wish to see connections that the facts do not support. It contains no detail to back up what is reported. No evidence that I am aware of has since been produced to suggest any connection of any kind between Sanchez Manzano and those who are accused of supplying the explosives. Southofwatford 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Times article is three years old and very controversial. Unless it has been widely followed up, and those concerns are still current among reliable sources, I would say we ought to leave it out. We can leave a link to it in Further reading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., fellows. Arguments were produced, so I retired the "link" line and moved the reference to "external links", at least until new followups to this issue are found.

OTOH... a very similar (IMHO) issue. Please read reference 41:

Investigators subsequently found that the explosives used in the Leganés explosion were of the same type as those used in the 11 March attacks and in the thwarted bombing of the AVE line

Sorry but this line is incorrect: The first analysis of the explosives that went off in the trains was released in January 2007 [59], so back in 2004 it was impossible to know which explosive went off in the trains. The line should be reworded, something in the line of "circumstancial evidence pointed to...the same tipe of explosives". Randroide 07:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again - the evidence on the explosives used is not circumstantial. There is a mountain of evidence pointing to the use of Goma 2 ECO because of explosives recovered from different sites connected with the bombings. The conspiracy theorists attempt to cast doubt on this is based purely on the fact that it has not been possible to definitively identify a brand of dynamite from samples taken from the trains. Only if you believe that all the other evidence has been fabricated by unknown hands can you regard the explosives issue as being doubtful. Those who believe in such a massive fabrication, Randroide included, are suddenly very shy when it comes to putting names, dates and places to such a plot. Southofwatford 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southofwatford wrote: it has not been possible to definitively identify a brand of dynamite from samples taken from the trains

I add this line of yours to the article at that solves the problem. I will use the past form "had" because sin January 2007 we have analysis Randroide 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How curious that you are not so rigorous about the mentions in the article of other explosives, after all no other explosive apart from Goma 2 ECO has been identified anywhere connected with the bombings - either on or off the trains. Southofwatford 13:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong: DNT [60][61] and Nitroglycerine [62] [63]had been identified in the remains of the trains, and Goma-2 ECO has neither substance [Page 51].

These links [64] [65] areto prove as false the "contamination at the factory" argument you are about to write. I will add all this info in the future. Randroide 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, no other explosive than Goma 2 ECO has been definitively identified anywhere associated with the attacks, if it has then tell me the name. DNT and nitroglycerine are not brands of explosives, they are individual components of several and I'm surprised you do not know that. None of the sources you provide identify a specific explosive. Nor they do they disprove any of the several possible causes of contamination. Nor do they offer any explanation for the presence of DNT in the master samples of GOMA 2 ECO. Nor will they, because we are dealing with faith based reasoning on the explosives issue, which translates as "anything will do if it is not GOMA 2 ECO". The assertions you make here show the complete absence of any genuine evaluation of sources which suit your political prejudices. Southofwatford 14:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Before going into the issue of the explosives (that BTW it is perfectly known and cristal clear) for the sake of sistematicity we should remove all the garbagge and libeling to the Spanish police that is now in the introduction and let what the informed sources say that is :

-It was an islamist bombing

-The police was in the right side

-ETA did not help in any way the terrorists.

I am not in the mood of dicsussing with Randroide about Al-Qaeda and the article is so far away from truth that I can live with the phrase "The official investigation by the Spanish Judiciary determined the attacks were directed by an al-Qaeda inspired terrorist cell.[29][30][31] but other investigations did not find evidence to support that claim [32] [33] [34]" if this shortens the job some months.--Igor21 11:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "garbage" and the "libeling" (your words, not mine) is sourced and well sourced, Igor21.

Ands there is not such a thing as "UNinformed sources". Sources are sources.Randroide 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Once Randroide's way of misusing sources and abuse wikipedia rules have been clearly shown and before going into the issue of the explosives (and suffer the dishonest acrobacies and fabrications that Randroide is going to deploy to hidden the evident truth) for the sake of sistematicity we should remove all the garbagge and libeling to the Spanish police that is now in the introduction and let what the informed sources say that is :

-It was an islamist bombing

-The police was in the right side

-ETA did not help in any way the terrorists.

I am not in the mood of dicsussing with Randroide about Al-Qaeda and the article is so far away from truth that I can live with the phrase "The official investigation by the Spanish Judiciary determined the attacks were directed by an al-Qaeda inspired terrorist cell.[29][30][31] but other investigations did not find evidence to support that claim [32] [33] [34]" if this shortens the job some months.--Igor21 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The explosives: New thread

Southofwatford wrote: How curious that you are not so rigorous about the mentions in the article of other explosives, after all no other explosive apart from Goma 2 ECO has been identified anywhere connected with the bombings - either on or off the trains.

You are wrong, Southofwatford:. It is difficult to be more wrong about something, and I am going to prove it:

DNT (DiNitroToluene) [66][67] and Nitroglycerine [68] [69]had been identified in the remains of the trains, and Goma-2 ECO has neither substance [Page 51].

These links [70] [71] are to prove as false the "contamination at the factory" bogus argument you are about to write. I will add all this info in the future.

A note for foreigners: The individuals being judged in Madrid for the bombings are connected ONLY to a Goma-2 ECO supplier. If any other explosive went off in the trains (the point I just proved above), there´s still a hidded part in all the bombings plot. Randroide 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you have not responded to my points I will cut and paste my reply:

"As I said, no other explosive than Goma 2 ECO has been definitively identified anywhere associated with the attacks, if it has then tell me the name. DNT and nitroglycerine are not brands of explosives, they are individual components of several and I'm surprised you do not know that. None of the sources you provide identify a specific explosive. Nor they do they disprove any of the several possible causes of contamination. Nor do they offer any explanation for the presence of DNT in the master samples of GOMA 2 ECO. Nor will they, because we are dealing with faith based reasoning on the explosives issue, which translates as "anything will do if it is not GOMA 2 ECO". The assertions you make here show the complete absence of any genuine evaluation of sources which suit your political prejudices."

Name another commercial explosive found and tell me where it has been found, no evasion - just name it and source it before telling other people they are wrong.

The phrase "Goma 2 ECO is the only explosive that has been positively identified in any of the sites associated with the bombings" is not disproven by any of the sources you have provided. Southofwatford 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need time to find the correct source (a source explaining how Tytadine fits with the January 2007 analysis) to answer your question, and I am extremely busy now. I will provide that source ASAP. Sorry for the inconvenience and thak you very much for spurring me in doing this groundwork for the article.

OTOH, sorry but I just proved that something else that Goma-2 ECO went off in the trains. If you do not want to recognise that simple fact, it´s not my problem. Randroide 15:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That must mean you have proof that the Goma 2 ECO samples did not contain DNT? I haven't seen that proof, I hope you will be able to find it because the official report for the trial makes it very clear that they did.

The other source you need to look for should establish that Titadyne has been found somewhere, otherwise you can only mention all explosives that contain any of the components found. Other explosives also contain one or both of DNT and nitroglycerine. Your source also needs todemonstrate that DNT was found in sufficient quantity for it to be a component of the explosive you wish to cite, the official report shows its presence in miniscule quantities only....in Goma-2 ECO. You still have a lot to prove Randroide to show that this statement is not true:

"Goma 2 ECO is the only explosive that has been positively identified in any of the sites associated with the bombings"

Wanting it to be untrue is unfortunately not sufficient. Southofwatford 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so everybody agrees in removing the libeling against police officers to be able of follow up with explosives?.--Igor21 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thre´s not a single Libel in the article, Igor21: Only sourced information. Please read the definition of "libel". Randroide 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For you is not libel since you think that Spanish police did the bombings using his informers. But for the rest of the planet, to say that Spanish police helped to kill 191 of his own nationals is libel. It is ludicruous to remove the cite and let the conclusions as you have done. And apart form the libel, the cite in french says the opposite to what you says that say and the criminal history of Trashorras is doing nothing there except push you delirant theories that he was directed by Spanish police. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Igor21 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My thinking (and my "theories", delirant or not) about the issue is irrelevant: Only what sources say counts, and everything is sourced. If there is any incorrect cite in French, please present the cite here, but AFAIK the translation is perfect. Again, please read WP:NPA.Randroide 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The report says that it was an islamist attack. You -doing original investigation ("original invention" in fact)- defined the "suppliers" as "perpetrators" and then mixing both things writed this phrase of "the only bla, bla...". And then you put this garbagge about Trashorras that is sourced because is true but is completely irrelevant,

What must say the introduction is what a person who is not familiar needs to know that is

-It was an islamist bombing

-Police did not help terrorist but all the way round

-ETA did nothing

Unfortnately your theories and thinking, as delirant as they are, are completely determining the article because nobody has the patience to study this case carefully and reach the evident conclusion that you must be blocked for all your misdoings, manipulations and no-ending cheekyness.--Igor21 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight in opening paragraphs

I have a problem with the references to the police in the paragraph below:

. . .The alleged perpetrators were Islamists extremists, mostly of North African origin, and some of them under surveillance by the Spanish police since January 2003 [1]. Spanish nationals who provided the explosives were also arrested. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]." (italicized for emphasis.

Also I think the paragraph immediately below is too far up.

Two alleged perpetrators were Guardia Civil and Spanish police informants [21][22][23] [24][25][26]. Cellphones used in the bombings were unlocked in a shop owned by a former Spanish policeman [27] who is not one of those accused in connection with the bombings. [28]

I'm troubled that there is only one source for the "surveillance" allegation, and that it is a Spanish language source. English language sources are preferable in the English Wikipedia. This should be mentioned but not in the second paragraph of the article.

There is an innuendo to the "under surveillance" language that I don't like. It implies a kind of police complicity. --Mantanmoreland 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that the innuendo is not accidental, the suggestion being made is that the police were somehow involved and colluded with those who carried out the bombings. If this innuendo was not being made it is very unlikely that this information would be considered important to the article. I think it is unlikely that we will get decent English language sources that cover the issue because internationally it is something that has attracted the little attention it deserves. All of this should be in controversies where it is possible to put additional facts on the issue without filling the opening paragraphs of the article with details whose relevance to the article is dubious to say the least. Southofwatford 06:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this is the crux of the issue. The content of the article must convey the same semantic content that the reader would catch if he reads all the sources. The way the sources have been cherrypicked and manipulated here is similar to what is done when you cut single words out of a newspaper to write a letter. So here we have a case of undue weight of enormous proportions since the conveyed impression is nearly the opposite to the one suggested by world class sources to a neutral reader. To be more precise we have a violation of the principle of exceptional claims require exceptional sources since extremely exceptional conclusions are reached without nothing else than small parts or reliable sources or dubious and/or outdated others being used extensively. My suggestion would be to 1)select recent, english and widely recognized sources (e.g. Bruce Hoffman and Ron Suskind) and 2)use them as a whole without looking for specific phrases, that if took out of context, can mislead the reader into thinking the opposite to what he had thought if he would have read the full text fo the originals. To do this it will be necesary to remove some of the sources and we must be bold to serve wikipedia goals properly.--Igor21 09:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "innuendo" (if any) is in the source. If anyone can produce a better translation for "seguimiento" and "persecución", please replace "surveillance" and that´s it.

The fact that the alleged perpetrators were under surveillance is NOT a controversial issue: No one denied that fact. It does not belong in "Controversies" (just the opposite can be said about the "al-Qaida link", as I showed above).

To sum up:

The "al-Qaida link" is CONTROVERSIAL, has been disputed (vide supra)
The police confidents nature of some alleged perpetrators and the fact that most alleged perpetrators were under surveillance has NOT been disputed, only ignored, by some media.

Suggesting that DISputed facts should be in the introduction AND that UNdisputed facts should be removed is a big time no go.

...without filling the opening paragraphs of the article with details whose relevance to the article is dubious to say the least

An "interesting" thought from the User who made these (OTOH valid) edits [72][73].

Randroide 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy of the issue is in the use being made by the conspiracy theorists of such data. It is a controversial issue whether the police could have done more to prevent the bombings, and whether they had sufficient resources dedicated to monitoring Islamist terrorism. The issue of police surveillance falls into that category and needs to be explained properly.

The Al Qaeda issue is one of authorship and deserves a mention in the opening paragraph with further exploration elsewhere in the article, the issues of police surveillance and informants are not about the authorship of the bombings and have the same status as hundreds of other details about those accused. Unless you would actually care to try and spell out the innuendo which gives these details more importance than others?

On the question of my edits, which were only inserted to balance the ridiculous emphasis of the introduction, a previous conviction for explosives trafficking of someone accused of supplying the explosives for the bombs has a relevance that none of the conspiracy theorist smear attempts on the issue of police informants can even hope to achieve. Your attempts to preserve this stuff in the introduction defies logic and wrecks the balance and coherence of the article, issues in which Randroide has never shown even the slightest interest. Southofwatford 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "conspiracy theorist": It´s up to you to prove the opposite. Happy dead horse beating.

Editors do not decide what is controversial and what is not: Sources do. If editors could decide, some guy could regard as "controversial" the hour of the explosions because, did you know?, not ALL the sources cite that fact. The hour of the explosions has not been disputed, si it is UNcontroversial. The same goes with the Police confidents and the Police Surveillance.

Any removal of that stuff will be treated as vandalism. If we reach that point (I hope not) the "judge" (i.e., the admin) will tell us who´s right and who´s wrong. This rather crude and simple SOP worked very well to stop your introduction of unsourced text at Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings and your destructive edit [74] on this article after Christmas: I will stick with this SOP.

Add new sourced information if you want, I wil never oppose that, but do not even think about deleting sourced information. Randroide 10:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are just editors so we cannot change the rules. If we arrive to the conclusion that we are in the presence of a massive breaking of wikipedia rules such as (non exhaustive list) wikipedia is not a place to spread propaganda, wikipedia is not the blog of a single user ,wikipedia is not an unshaped accumulation of unestructured information and wikipedia is not a battleground; we are forced to be bold and remove those phrases and sources that should not be where they are because are there in a misunderstanding of what reliable sources mean.--Igor21 11:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what do you remove, we will finish explaining our actions to the "judge" at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. There´s a thing called "blanking". Randroide 12:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who believes the Leganés suicide was a setup and that all the significant evidence in the case has been fabricated is a conspiracy theorist, we have indeed been through this at length. Your occasional attempts to pretend you are just "doubting" the indictment take a big blow every time you try to introduce Peones Negros sources into the article; or when you claim that the Spanish government may be out to kill you and the other "doubters"!

Sources do not decide what is controversial, that is nonsense and another invented "Randroide Rule". Editors are not robots and they are entitled to place information in other sections if they believe that is the right place for such information. If there is a disagreement on the treatment of an issue between editors then it is the editors that have to resolve the issue, not the sources used. On vandalism, I think I already quoted the Wikipedia position to you the other day, it's a bit more stable than your definition. Southofwatford 12:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My diffs about Leganés you failed to provide, please. I suggest you to start searching those diffs, just to see how wrong you are.

Oh, yes, I think that the GEOs are ringing my door, the came here to kill me. Sorry for the cheap pun, but I had to laugh.

AFAIAK, after a complete review I presented at the ArbCom about your actions here, you are not an editor. The same goes for Igor21, a guy who explicitly rejected WP:POV: "Wikipedia´s foolishness", Igor21´s words (see complete report here). Oh, yes, I am "addicted to diffs", a "vice" you do not have. Randroide 12:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are claiming that you no longer believe Leganés to be a setup? I'm confused now, you seemed very clear about it before. As you did about the threat from the Spanish state. Perhaps you were joking in both cases? Or maybe it was another Randroide who made those claims?

You are not just addicted to diffs, but to the practice of constructing alternative realities from highly selective use of sources - your view on who is an editor or not has no relevance because (thankfully) you have no authority to impose your authoritarian and sectarian vision on the rest of us. Southofwatford 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to mi diff claiming Leganés "a setup"?.

Moreover: Editor´s thoughts, beliefs, convictions whims and fantasies are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Only sources count.

OTOH, I entertain "beliefs" about nothing, and I mean nothing: It is bad epistemology. Randroide 12:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Randroide, I forgot you don't like the word "setup", you prefer to describe Leganés as a "staged event". Staged by who, precisely? Southofwatford 13:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to my diff claiming Leganés a "staged event"?.

Could you please stop talking about me?. Tnak you, you know: (WP:NOT) Randroide 14:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your diff [[75]]. When you want other editors to stop talking about you perhaps you should lead by example and follow your own advice? You have filled pages with stuff dedicated to other editors. Southofwatford 15:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can go for Leganes suicide at another point. Let's be sistematic because we have weeks of work in front and we cannot disperse ourselves. I think now it will be better if we come back to the introduction of the article and the outstanding undue weight caused by not respecting the reliable sources policy and thus breaking at least the following rules : (non exhaustive list) wikipedia is not a place to spread propaganda, wikipedia is not the blog of a single user ,wikipedia is not an unshaped accumulation of unestructured information and wikipedia is not a battleground. Our duty as editors is to enforce the rules even if this means to be bold. --Igor21 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the concept of an opening paragraph is to sum up the key points of the article, without too much detail. My opinion is that the first three sections should more or less remain, with the last paragraph as well. The 4th and 5th paragraphs are far too detailed to be included in the introduction. My proposal would look like this:

"The 2004 Madrid train bombings (also known as 11-M, 3/11, 11/3 and M-11) consisted of a series of coordinated bombings against the Cercanías (commuter train) system of Madrid, Spain on the morning of 11 March 2004, killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

The alleged perpetrators were Islamists extremists, mostly of North African origin, and some of them under surveillance by the Spanish police since January 2003. Spanish nationals who provided the explosives were also arrested. It is the only terrorist act in history, according to the European Strategic Intelligence And Security Center, where non-Muslims collaborated with Muslims [25]

The official investigation by the Spanish Judiciary determined the attacks were directed by an al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist cell, although other investigations dispute this claim."

Parsecboy 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Spanish nationals" for "Spanish police confidents" and we have a deal: You are giving much more (sourced) information simply adding a word.

I suppose that you do not want to delete the sources from the introduction.Randroide 14:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would unfortunately be quite inaccurate to describe all of those who are accused of supplying the explosives as being police informers, Antonio Toro (one of those people) would be very annoyed. Southofwatford 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An opportune remark, Southofwatford: "Two Spanish police confidents" will made the trick (Trashorras and Zouhier) Randroide 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would put the word "occasional" before "police surveillance" based on what has been said at the trial. Otherwise I will accept this version as a much better introduction than what we have at the moment. Southofwatford 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find the word '"occasional"' (or something to that effect) in the sources, that´s good for me Randroide 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To not incurr in undue weight the references to Spanish police must be removed. If you read all the sources that speak about the bombings in none of them there is any suspicions about Spanish police colaborating with the terrorists not to said directing them throguh the informants as the introduction is currently conveying. Be bold includes do whatever must be done including removing sources that convey ideas not supported by reliable sources.--Igor21 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just removed the source numbers to make it an easier read. I would agree with Southofwatford; perhaps a compromise would be "Spanish nationals, some of whom were police informants, who provided...". How does that sound? Parsecboy 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds horrible. Our model should be the 9/11 article and in it there not say "FBI had the names and credit card numbers of the terrorist who bought the tickets" in the introduction because saying so is to convey that FBI was implied. I want the same respect for truth here. --Igor21 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy´s wording good for me Randroide 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly rejected WP:NPOV, Igor21. Sorry but you are not part of the "game".

OTOH, we are not talking about suspicions about Spanish police colaborating with the terrorists (such line does not exists in the article, because it could not be properly sourced), but about the sourced fact of police confidents as a part of the bombings plot. Randroide 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the moment I see the reference to police informers I immediately ask why there is no reference to any other details such as them being convicted explosives traffickers - and that just starts the whole eternal cycle again. Lets just leave it at Spanish nationals and the stuff on informants can go into a section where it can be dealt with in detail. Southofwatford 15:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with the "convicted" reference. No cycle. Add your "convicted" reference and that´s it. For the sake of consensus I drop to the subsection "my" reference about Trashorras gaining access to a mine after being ~~convicted~~ (see below). Randroide 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are speaking about this introduction conveying suspicions against Spanish police that would never arise from the reading of the sources as a whole. This inuendo is a product of the undue weight and is a defect that must be solved.--Igor21 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are simply dealing with having a concise introduction, I do not want to be putting additional detail there and am quite happy for the reference on the conviction to go elsewhere in the article along with the reference to informers and hair colour and car ownership details and everything else. BTW, it's just not true that Trashorras gained access to the mine after his trafficking conviction - the sentence came after the Madrid bombings. Southofwatford 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my error. You are right. My command of English legal jargonis far from perfect. I meant "gaining access to a mine after being prosecuted" Randroide 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here we have here 16 sources in English (amongst thousands) and in none say anything about Spanish police being suspicious but all the way round. [76] [77] [78] [79][80][81][82] [83][84] [85][86] [87][88] [89][90] So to follow no original research rule we must remove this inuendo. --Igor21 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just mentioned about English language sources because this is the English Wikipedia. Spanish sources are of course welcome as this incident occurred in Spain. But English sources are usually preferable. Assuming it is established fact that they were under police surveillance, it concerns me that this is placed so high up in the article without providing context. It implies police involvement and seems out of place. It should be mentioned, but it needs to be done in a way that does not implicate the Spanish police since, very obviously, they have not been implicated. That needs to be done further down in the article.--Mantanmoreland 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Igor21: Not a single line in the article about "police being suspicious".

Every article on the face of Earth about the Madrid bombings should not tell the whole history, Igor21.

We should: Wikipedia aims to be the sum of human knowledge.

To Mantamoreland: I added some references in English. Find a way to mention the fact in a way that does not implicate the Spanish police (IMHO current wording is satisfactory, but I am not the only editor here) and the problem is solved. Randroide 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said earlier that I believe the question of whether the police and authorities paid sufficient attention to the threat is an important one, and the surveillance issue is part of that - possibly it deserves its own section. Surveillance does not implicate the police in anything without the additional use of imagination. Southofwatford 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide : Please check wikipedia is not an unshaped accumulation of unestructured information. The article must convey the same that the sources take as a whole. Priorizing some details of some sources in the introduction is to incur in undue weight or even worst in original research.--Igor21 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article must be the sum of human knowledge about the issue. No less. Randroide 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possibly also worth pointing out that the two of the accused who were police informers, were informers to local police forces on questions that had nothing to do with terrorism - and had no relationship to those who actually carried out the investigation of the bombings. Context is all important and all this information simply does not fit or belong in the introduction. Southofwatford 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trashorras sold explosives. If you think that has nothing to do with terrorism I must disagree vehemently with you. Randroide 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote again Randroide, you have not understood it. I am talking about who they informed too in the police. Southofwatford 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, police negligence must be treated in-extenso in the inside of the article as must be explained how the terrorist bought the explosives. We can write hundred pages about both subjects. My only point is that including the word "police" in the introduction is per-se inuendo.--Igor21 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide-- you are right, you are not the only editor here and others should take a crack at the language. I will try to do so, but I'd like to see one of the other regular editors here take a crack at it first.--Mantanmoreland 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "mentioning" that they were police informers without providing proper context and explanation ends up being meaningless and uninformative. The question for me is: why is this data so important that it has to be in the introduction, and a hundred other details about the accused should not be? I still see no answer to that question. Southofwatford 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you the answer: It is so important because some sources regarded is as important, to the point of whole articles being based on this fact (see references at the main article). Randroide 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we can find whole articles based on many, many aspects of the train bombings. The question has to be asked as things stand now: what significance, if any, can we attribute to the fact that two out of several people accused of supplying explosives were informers to their local police drugs squads? What does it mean, what does it demonstrate? To me, nothing. Southofwatford 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southofwatford has a point; the fact that two of the accomplices were police informants to the local cop's drugs squads isn't necessarily relevant to this event. At least not so important that it is noted in the opening paragraphs. If anything, it should be in the main body of the article. Parsecboy 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a point too: You are suggesting to delete from the introduction UNdisputed facts (the police informers and the alleged perpetrators being surveilled, or the word you choose to describe the fact), regarded as important by some media, and to leave a DISputed fact (te alleged al-Qaeda link). If the DISputed al-Qaida link is to stay in the introduction, the removal of the UNdisputed facts is, certainly, a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Randroide 19:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed by whom, though? As I understand the coverage, particularly in the English-language media, the preponderance of the coverage agrees that it was a Qaeda-led plot. Even if you take that out, I would still maintain that such a heavy emphasis on the "police informant" and "surveillance" gives an incorrect impression. By all means keep it in, but not in the beginning where it is given undue weight. That would be like saying, in the 2nd paragraph of the WTC article, "several of the hijackers had been under FBI surveillance." High up in that article would be inappropriate too.--Mantanmoreland 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question of direct Al Qaeda participation is a controversial issue and should be considered in more detail elsewhere in the article. Nevertheless it is perfectly legitimate to include in the introduction that the bombers are being accused of inspiration from Al Qaeda. The stuff on police informers can only be there to balance the Al Qaeda reference if there is actually an accusation backed by some evidence that the police helped to organise the bombings. I know Randroide would dearly love to make that allegation, and the conspiracy theorist blogs do make it - but an insinuation of police involvement is not acceptable because it simply means twisting the sources to only get what you want from them. Southofwatford 08:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]