User talk:FayssalF/11M

This page is dedicated to discuss the POV/NPOV issues related to 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Background

The article conflict is about the "allegations" of a "conspiracy theory" suggesting the implication of the actual gov't of Spain (in the opposition side at the time of the bombings) along with ETA and other foreign and third parties in the bombings. There are two camps discussing this issue (please add your signature below). Wikipedians in favour want the allegations to be included based on the El Mundo article (in Spanish) whearas the ones against want it to be discarded arguing it is a complot.

Participants

In favour

Qualified In favour

Randroide 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) I am in favour of including NPOV descriptions of sourced facts published by reliable sources, as the nespaper El Mundo (Spain). I am against the inclusion of unsourced, unproved theories, like the theory of the spanish governmet behind the Madrid 2004 bombings.[reply]

Against

Neutral

Szvest 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initial statement of User:FayssalF (aka Szvest)

As an administrator and third/neutral party, i've been asked by Burgas00 to intervene to see if i can help sort this out. I'll add to my statement after hearing from all sides of this debate. I've also informed Randroide about my acceptance of the hearing as well as Igor21 about this hearing ,and Burgass00 also . Please remember the following policies and guidelines:

-- Szvest 13:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Statement of User:Gimferrer

Burgas00 has deleted the next information (all with well sourced facts):

the schedule of the trains: (7:36-7:40 AM)
the information about the different bombs:

The provincial chief of the TEDAX (bomb experts at spanish police) declared on July 12th 2004, that damage in the trains could not be caused by dynamite, but by some type of military explosive, like C3 or C4 [1]. Two bombs (one in Atocha and another one in El Pozo stations, numbers 11 and 12) were detonated accidentally by the TEDAX. According the provincial chief of the TEDAX, deactivated rucksacks contained some other type of explosive. The 13th bomb (translated to a police station) contain dynamite, but did not explode, because there were not two wires connecting the explosives to the detonator. That bomb used a mobile phone Mitsubishi Trium as a timer, requiring a SIM card to activate the alarm, and thereby detonate[2]. The analysis of the SIM card allowed the police to arrest the first perpetrators. :A link about detentions: [3].

The body of that police was profanated on the next days.

Burgas00 has deleted the information about the official theory of judge Del Olmo, PRISA and ABC (hash traffickers of Moroccan origin, Asturian thiefs, Internet...): Nowadays, the responsibility is imputed by Judge Del Olmo to "local cells of Islamic integrists inspired by mean of Internet" [4], not Al-Qaeda, GIA or Islamic Group Combatant Moroccan. This local cells would be constituted by hash traffickers of Moroccan origin, remotely linked to an Al Qaeda cell already captured. These group would have bought the explosives (dynamite Goma-2 ECO)to low-level thiefs of Asturias (North of Spain) with money coming from the drug traffic on small scale.

A neutral issue demands to gather all the important points of view (not only PRISA or ABC). Here I have been including information about theories from these media (not only the Burgas00's opinions about them):

as well as accuse affirm that the "three capital evidences on the lawsuit have been falsified by elements on the Policy statements":

the knapsackp-bomb that appears in a police station. These bomb would "have walken around Madrid, without the TEDAX (bomb experts at spanish police) had detected it in the El Pozo railway station. Within the sac, a device that could not explode, based on a mobile phone with a unnnecesary SIM card, but that it opportunely lead to a scapegoat few hours before the elections" [5].

A Renault Kangoo van where appear 61 objects, among them rest of dynamite Goma-2 ECO. However, police would have declared that it was empty after reviewing with dogs at the first time. A recent attempt to link ETA to the bombings and to discredit the security forces occurred in May 2006 when the newspaper El Mundo published on its front page that a business card of the basque firm Mondragón had been found in this van. According to El Mundo this important piece of evidence had been omitted in the Police report. According to right-wing conspiracy theorists this proved an important link between the bombers and ETA as well as the "lies" of the government and security forces. Albeit, the firm Mondragón has no relationship with ETA and, more importantly, it was later revealed that, what had been found in the van was a music CD of the popular Spanish 80s rock group "Orquesta Mondragón" in a pile of various other music CDs. [6]

A Skoda Fabia that later appears to 20 meters of the Kangoo. Both vehicles would been used by the terrorists.

According El Mundo, "the notes on the Moroccan confident 'Cartagena' prove that the Police had under surveillance the 3/11 leadership" [7]. Thirtyfour from these forty imputed were informers and/or were controlled by the Police, Civil Guard and National Center of Intelligence before the attacks. That newspapers is outstanding weird coincidences, too: Moroccan El Chino distributed hash in the Basque country. A notebook of Carmen Toro (member of Asturian group) contained the cellphone number of the own Chief of TEDAX [8]. The cellphones used in the bombing came from a the shop of Mausilli Kalaji, a Spanish police officer, former member of Al Fatah [9]. Gimferrer 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burgas00 only talks about "the extremely serious accusations launched by members of the Partido Popular and a number of conservative media outlets". He deleted the information about the accusations launched by Almodovar or manifestants to Partido Popular.

In some manifestations, Aznar was called Assassin [10] and several ministers were struck. The film director Pedro Almodóvar declared to the international press that “the PP was on the verge of causing a coup d'etat” [11] However,

In this sense, Burgas00 has introduced his opinions about several mass media of Spain, as El Mundo is a conservative media, etc, and deleted the references to false information spread by PRISA: In the days that followed the attacks, too many rumors and deliberate hoaxes were spread, specially in Internet, but also in prestigious media, as the Radio Station SER, where it was maintained that the corpses of suicidal terrorists have been found in the trains [12].

Summary: Burgas00 have tried to impose a political point of view, when denigrating to the mass media (the second and fourth newspaper and the second radio station in Spain) that do not defend your thesis. It's necessary to add something of information which those mass media recover (not only PRISA). --Gimferrer 12:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:Burgas00

The "investigations" were already mentioned in the article, describes as what they are: a political campaign by the right. I think it would destroy the main article to include such baseless insinuations. Whatever Randroide claims, the aim of these supposed investigations are to implicate ETA and the PSOE in the bombings by discrediting the country's democratic institutions. Radio presentors promotors of these investigations like Federico Jimenez Losantos have openly accused the PSOE of organising the attacks. In my opinion, a new article should be created called conspiracy theories on the 11-M and linked to the main article. That way normal info can be separated from this tenuous slander-campaign. --Burgas00 08:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider view by User:Dr Debug

I came to Wikipedia to research 11-M and I have looked at the discussion from a distance. I am a conspiracy theorist and have extensive knowledge about 9/11 and as part of the investigation wanted to look at 11-M as well since it contains similar discrepancies. My POV is this matter that I don't believe the 11-M Commission Report and consider it to be false just like the 9/11 Commission Report. My political POV is pretty left winged.

When I first read the document - it's currently better - it presented a document severely slanted towards the official conspiracy theory and a lot of additional information had been removed. The number of inconsistencies in the Official Conspiracy are such that they need to be included in the document and even though some people are slanted towards the "Socialists Did It" theory, their investigation raise very legimate points which are and can be fully documented, referenced and validated and thus presents an alternate view which should be mentioned. There are also people who are raise other issues and have a more broad view on the matter and they are equally ignored and ridiculed.

The document is far from NPOV and represents only the official version which is severely flawed. The other views need to be included as well especially since there are many supporters and the stories can be validated. Dr Debug (Talk) 16:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A side discussion about the background text edited by FayssalF

Hello, FayssalF. Thank you very much for your serious (whow!, an especific page) mediation work.

You wrote:

the "allegations" of a "conspiracy theory" suggesting the implication of the actual gov't of Spain (in the opposition side at the time of the bombings) along with ETA and other foreign and third parties in the bombings

Sorry, but I can not sign with my user name in favour of that text.

I did not say that.

I said (and sourced) that reputable sources (El Mundo) argue that they can prove that the purported "Islamists" were not guilty of the 3/11 2004 bombings. To sum up: They say that we do not know who made it. The investigation must start again from scratch.Randroide 13:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added the reference to the article. Could you please provide me with the exact text where it says the investigation must start from scratch. I could not retrieve the integral text as i had to sing up. Cheers -- Szvest 14:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is not such a text. It is just the implication of the facts exposed by the Newspaper: If you do not know who made it you must start again...from scratch. All the Official Version was based upon Goma-2 as the bombing explosive. Randroide 14:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is than the problem w/ signing above? Do you have any particular objection w/ the text of in the background section? Please let me know if you have another "accurate" formulation of that text. -- Szvest 17:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is pretty obvious: "we do not know who made it" (the facts that I source) is NOT, by far, the same affirmation as "the implication of the actual gov't of Spain...[]...along with ETA"Randroide 17:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official version (be it true or not) is the one that should prevail till this moment. At this stage, we have to presume innocence until proven guilty. Thus, the text i provided at the background section is totally accurate and NPOV in terms of presenting facts into hands (till this moment). -- Szvest 17:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

The official version (be it true or not) is the one that should prevail till this moment. At this stage, we have to presume innocence until proven guilty

Well. The official version presumes that the "islamists" were (and are, the few surviving ones) guilty.

If you want to be faithful to the Presumption of innocence you can not say "those persons ("islamists") are guilty", but "those people are usually believed to be guilty".

On the other hand: You should also "presume innocence" in the people who argue against the official version.

The official version (be it true or not) is the one that should prevail till this moment.

Please give a detailed definition of "prevail". If you mean that the official version should be carefully explained, even with more space than the UnOfficial Versions, I agree with you.Randroide 17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text on the background presents the conflict between to the editors of the article inside wikipedia. It has nothing to do w/ the political conflict outside wikipedia. I am not here to tell anybody who did the attacks or not or even ask who did it. In fact, that is up to you and the rest of the involved participants in this resolution. I am here to represent wikipedia in terms of an admin mediating an edit warring and resolving a dispute according to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. All i am asking you is to formally sign above at the side you are representing within wikipedia. Are you pro what is said in El Mundo or contra. That's all i am asking for. I hope i was clear enough. --

Szvest 18:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict you presented in the "Background" section is NOT my conflict, Sir. I can not put my usename under that text.

My conflict is if the sourced facts against the Official Version should be presented or not, and I say: Yes, those sourced facts (just as ALL sourced facts) should be presented, but there are not evidences nor serious allegations of ETA or PSOE (or any other group) implication.

Perhaps you are confounded by the affirmations made by Burgas00. Burgas00 said that I was accusing the PSOE. That is a first class, bonafide Straw Man. That´s not true.Randroide 18:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am i confused or what? Facts or not should be discussed in statements. The background serves to present the case and the reason why we are here. Isn't it about 2 different camps w/ 2 different claims? Isn't that mentionned at the backgroubd. Did the backgroud says anyone's claim is right or wrong? Is the text biased toward someone? Are you pro or contra. You are definitely not neutral as you are into a conflict. So sign wheather you are pro or contra. Am i right? -- Szvest 18:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you seem to be confused. The 11-M is a very complex issue, and the gargantuan discussions Burgas00 and I had do not help either.

The background serves to present the case

That´s NOT my case, sir.

Isn't it about 2 different camps w/ 2 different claims? Isn't that mentionned at the backgroubd

My camp is not mentioned in that background, sir.

You are definitely not neutral as you are into a conflict.

Oh, yes, of course. But my conflict is NOT mentioned in the current "Background" section.

I will give you a new proposed text for the background:

The article conflict is about the "allegations" made by some sources about the supposed self-contradictory nature of the official version about the Madrid 2004 train bombings. There are two camps discussing this issue (please add your signature below). Wikipedians in favour want the allegations to be included whearas the ones against want it to be discarded arguing it is a complot.Randroide 19:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can put my name in favour of this Background.Randroide 19:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians in favour want the allegations to be included based on the El Mundo article (in Spanish). Isn't that represent your case?

Re your proposal...about the supposed self-contradictory nature of the offcicial version is a POV statement. It is not up to Wikipedia to suggest it is a self-contradictory. I am representing WP:NPOV and i am in no position to state any conclusion in the background. -- Szvest 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Lets forget about "self-contradictory" qualifier....I see your point. Sorry: I am not familiarized with the intrincacies of this process (it´s my first time).

Wikipedians in favour want the allegations to be included based on the El Mundo article (in Spanish)

O.K. , that´s right, but please note that the disputed article is this one, not the article mentioned in the current background.Randroide 19:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. I've just replaced the link of the main El Mundo's article. Now that we agreed about that i am titeling this introductory discussion about the background text under a new title so you can start your statement from scratch. I left your reserved statement section for that purpose above. Cheers -- Szvest 19:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great.

But now you should cut this: The article conflict is about the "allegations" of a "conspiracy theory" suggesting the implication of the actual gov't of Spain (in the opposition side at the time of the bombings) along with ETA and other foreign and third parties in the bombings.

...and paste this: Wikipedians in favour want the allegations to be included based on the El Mundo article (in Spanish)Randroide 20:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us try this.

The article conflict is about wheather to include a published article on 11/07/2006 by El Mundo (in Spanish) suggesting the implication of the actual gov't of Spain represented by the PSOE (in the opposition side at the time of the bombings) along with ETA and other foreign and third parties in the bombings.

There are two camps discussing this issue (please add your signature below). Wikipedians in favour want the allegations to be included based on the article arguing it contains facts of an implication whearas the ones against want it to be discarded arguing it is a complot.. -- Szvest 20:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If i'm allowed to write in this section, i'd propose:

The article conflict is about the "allegations" of a "conspiracy theory" suggesting that many fact that are considered proved on the Official Version (VO) are inaccurate or even false; including the possibility of fraudulent data. It allows many posibilities (as there's little accurate data) as far it's consistent, including possible implication of PSOE supporters (the PSOE is the actual gov't of Spain, in the opposition side at the time of the bombings) along with ETA and other foreign and third parties in the bombings.

There are two camps discussing this issue (please add your signature below). Wikipedians in favour want the allegations to be included based on the multiple contradictions, from official data and also external sources from newspapers like El Mundo, whearas the ones against want it to be discarded arguing it is a complot. --Platonides 22:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Platonides for you input. It allows many posibilities (as there's little accurate data) as far it's consistent is POV. This is a background for mediation and the background should be neutral. Everybody got his statement section reserved to develop her/his ideas. The background is a wikipedia conflict x is about party y wanting to include info z while party w wants it removed. As far as i am concerned, being the mediator and admin, I don't have to state or argue at the background that info z is true or false. -- Szvest 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Sort out what you guys will have as background, and then I will sign in favour of having a mention to those allegations based on external sources like El Mundo. Cheers to all. Anagnorisis 00:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUBJECT 1: ETA

The El Mundo article does NOT say "ETA made it". The article only says that ETA had the right kind of explosives to match with the Nytroglicerine clue.

Just an example: Suppose we have an assasination by gunshot, and the suspect one (ETA) owns a .45. Ballistics (the official version) says that the bullet of the killing is a 0.38 (Goma-2 ECO), so suspect one is declared innocent. If El Mundo (Spain) proofs that the bullet who killed the victim was not a 0.38 (as is was believed until then) but a 0.45 (and that is what the article is about), that is NOT conclusive proof of suspect one being guilty. El Mundo only (only...gosh!) reopened the case against the suspect one (ETA)...but it is (still) an open case!.

...BTW: ETA is not mentioned at all in the "smoking gun" section I created. I do not know really why we are talking about this.

NO mention of ETA in the background, please. That will be the simplest option.

SUBJECT 2: OTHER PARTIES

Nor the PSOE, nor the Spanish government, nor any other third parties should be mentioned at all in the background, as they are not mentioned in the article. This is an absolute requirement.

Sorry for the inconvenience of this lenghty discussion, but it is completely neccesary. Randroide 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why they were on the background. In my change, i maintained them on a much lower field, but the text from It allows...' to the end of the paragraph could (should?) be perfectly dropped. Platonides 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know neither, Platonides: ETA, PSOE and any other "third party" should be deleted from the background without leaving any trace. Claims about ETA or the PSOE as perpetrators are unfounded and should be avoided. Randroide 13:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are asking guys to remove all of that? What would be stated there then? -- Szvest 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE BACKGROUND: The article conflict is about the legitimacy (or lack of it) of the inclusion in the article about 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings of NPOV references to information articles (NOT opinion columns) published in the newspaper El Mundo (Spain).Randroide 07:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide, besides what you believe yourself (I am happy you are not supporting everything thats being claimed in the right wing media) it should be clearly stated is that the AIM of these investigations (as can be clearly inferred from a long series of outrageous accusations) is to implicate the PSOE in the bombings. Whether they have found conclusive evidence to do so is another issue. That is what they are attempting and it should be left clear. There is also a media campaign to make people believe the government, police and judiciary are lying on the 11-M. --Burgas00 10:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks God we can agree on something, Burgas00. But, on the other hand...

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, i.e., a recollection of facts, Burgas00, NOT a psychoanalytic forum about the news. So...

The alleged (by you) aims of the spanish media are both irrelevant (Wikipedia is about facts, not about alleged intentions) and unknowable (In spanish we say "Sobre las intenciones no juzga ni la Iglesia" -Regarding intentions, not even the church can pass judgment-). You do NOT know and, positively, you CAN NOT know what is the game that Pedro J. Ramírez is playing: Creating your pet media campaign, promoting confussion just to inflate his ego, just selling newspapers or, maybe (who knows?), just promoting good investigative journalism in the best tradition of Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.

If you can find (yes, I give you the idea, it´s a gift for you) an article by "El Pais" denouncing your pet media campaign, quote and link to it in the article. I am not against adding sourced information, I am against deleting sourced informatiom.Randroide 10:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you are discussing the heart of the matter. Please use that in the statement above otherwise it would be a mess. Thanks for your collaboration. -- 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Randroide request for a new discussion

O.K. People is already voting here. This is not any longer a private issue among our gentle mediator and I, so my discussion about the background for this discussion is now obsolete. I request a new discussion, with the next background (or something like this):

The article conflict is about the legitimacy (or lack of it) of the inclusion in the article about 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings of NPOV sourced references to information articles (NOT opinion columns) published in the newspaper El Mundo (Spain).

Sorry but I can not vote in the current poll. This poll is corrupted (with all due respect to the writer) by the text "The article conflict is about...[]...suggesting the implication of the actual gov't of Spain".

There is not a single evidence of that accusation published in a reputable source. As Burgas00 correctly reminds from time to time, the Internet buzz created by some spanish groups is another matter (CAUTION, could be regarded as "Shock link"), but Wikipedia is not made (or should not be made) of Internet buzz, but of sourced facts published in reputable sources.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but total precision in the prior statements about what are we talking about is A MUST.Randroide 08:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide, the poll is about allowing El Mundo for inclusion as far as I can tell. What you want to include is the verifiable parts of the news report and that's indeed an entirely different discussion. The way I read this mediation is that it is about allowing El Mundo to be used and I think the answer is yes. The validation of the data is upto you and I am not involved in that. I am merely voting to approve the source as such and my knowledge (of Spanish) is too limited to make an assessment of what parts to include and what to discard. Dr Debug (Talk) 10:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are partially right, Dr. Debug...but a bowl of nutritive soup with a drop of poison is poisoned soup, despite the nutritive part.

BACKGROUND ANALYSIS: The article conflict is about the "allegations" of a "conspiracy theory" suggesting the implication of the actual gov't of Spain (in the opposition side at the time of the bombings) along with ETA and other foreign and third parties in the bombings. There are two camps discussing this issue (please add your signature below). Wikipedians in favour want the allegations to be included based on the El Mundo article (in Spanish) whearas the ones against want it to be discarded arguing it is a complot.

The nutritive part of the soup is in Italics

The poisonous part of the soup is in Bold. Those assertions are untenable, and I will not support that text, because it is a flagrant breaching of Wikipedia policies.

I do not drink from a bowl of soup I know it is poisoned...despite the nutritious part.Randroide 10:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the validation part. You can invalidate those parts, however the game is about include the source as such. So if you disallow the source, the OCTer would have won. That's the game plan. The question is about allowing the source. The parts to include are up to you. Dr Debug (Talk) 10:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes...I think now I got the point. So I can say a qualified in favour, detailing that my vote is NOT for the PSOE or the "third parties" part. Please correct me if I am wrong. BTW, what is the meaning of OCT?Randroide 10:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Validation is using the parts of a story for which a good argument exists that they are true or which can be double sourced.

OCT is a 9/11 word. Because they accuse people of being conspiracy theorists, the official story is called Official Conspiracy Theory and the proponents OCTers. 11-M is exactly the same of course. Dr Debug (Talk) 10:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I prefer to hear first to our host here, FayssalF.Randroide 19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Randroide here. If we vote on including El Mundo's info on a goverment conspiracy background, we can be accused for it by the first troll, and saying it must be removed because it was included due to a wrong fact (e.g. if goverment is proved to have nothing to do). Better decide first if include this simple statement. Then we can decide if accept/reject other pieces of information. Platonides 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]