Talk:Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings

Some of the material in this article originally appeared at March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks. See the page history of that article and the archives of that page's talk page for details.

Post war election

The article claims:

It was the first time a government that backed the Iraq war has been voted out of office.

Was this the first election involving a government backing the Iraq war? Is this one government voted out of office out of many, or one out of one so far? Miguel 17:08, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)

I think this was the first time a government which took part in the occupation of Iraq faced re-election. The US, UK, Australia, Poland have not had elections since last April. Adam 14:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Pamplona death

Is the Pamplona baker shot dead a pending edit or is there some reason to not include the case here?

I had to draw a direct relevance line somewhere. We are not writing a chronicle of everything that has happened in Spain this week. Adam 00:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The shot happened after a discussion over a poster condemning the attacks. 1 person died.

Batasuna leaders point to the People's Party as (indirect) guilty of the murder. It could be constructed that the focus given by the Government to the ETA hypothesis fueled anger to the point of murder. --Error 02:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While I do not sympathise with Batasuna, I do think the event is important enough in the political aftermath (within Spain). Just as I would expect the articles surrounding 9-11 to include references to the few deaths of muslim or south-asian immigrants in the USA immediately after 9-11, I would expect a mention of this incident in the "aftermath of 11-M" page. Moreover, NPOV requres us to include references to all POVs, and from the POV of Batasuna, the dead baker, and a woman who died at a demonstration to protest his death, are "victims of 11-M", as this article in Gara suggests when it says "202 people dead already". Miguel 19:58, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)

It should be included. (As an aside, Balbir Singh Sodhi even has his own article.) –Hajor 20:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Restored. I trimmed the final part and maybe it's not the last version. I don't remember about that woman and don't feel like searching. --Error 01:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Passive voice

Following the attacks, initial suspicions focussed on the Basque armed separatist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna ("Basque Fatherland and Liberty") or ETA, although suggestions that the Islamist organisation al-Qaida was responsible were also immediately raised.

Considering how politically important the question of blame seems to be, I think we really really must avoid the passive voice here. Who initially suspected ETA? Who suggested that al-Qaida was responsible? When? DanKeshet 07:40, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this is an important question. But attributing these suggestions to individuals will not be easy, because my recollection is that both groups were immediately named as possible suspects by just about everbody, at least in the English-language media such as the BBC and CNN which I was following. Adam 08:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

'Mainstream media & government.' --Cantus 08:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This type of issue is at the heart of "NPOV: A second course" as opposed to NPOV 101 that newbies learn every day. At first glance it appears like the paragraph is failing the Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words test of writing a decent article. But then you think about it a bit more and realize to assign that opinion (implicitly, even) to one organisation by quoting just that organisation, you are marginalizing an opinion that is held by "just about everybody". In fact this sort of thing is covered by the "weasel words can be a legitmate rhetorical device to deliver widely-held opinions" clause of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Anyway enough general pontificating, in this specific case, they are several (now former) government ministers to quote, as well as saying that news organisations agreed - Though it is quite shocking how little original thought goes on on some of these TV new programmes... I don't think the Casablanca bombings were mentioned by anyone until the guys got arrested, for example. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:17, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To be fair to the ministers (who are not ex-ministers yet, by the way) I think it is not unreasonable for ETA to be the first suspect for any bombing atrocity in Spain. Obviously they had strong political desire that this be so, but in the absence of any hard evidence in the first few hours it was a fair call. Adam

The first few hours, yes, but they kept it up well into the Saturday. Here's a very interesting article on how the PP handled the information as it arose. –Hajor 20:10, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Page title

I do not like the title of this page. It should be changed to something other than "Responses to...". "Responses" does not reflect the content of the article. Maybe "Aftermath" is more suitable. dave 21:43, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree on this. Aftermath would be better, and would include *everything* that happens after the actual March 11 attack. --Vikingstad 23:50, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

It's also funny that the main Madrid attacks article has a long section called "Reactions". Reactions is almost a synonym of Responses I think... dave 00:21, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I got rid of the old page and changed all links to this one Aftermath of...

It should also be in European date format, i.e., "Aftermath of the 11 March, 2004 Madrid attacks" - MPF 02:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Passeig de Gràcia

As an illustration of the correct use of Google, 7920 catalan pages spell it with an accent, against 580 that spell it without. ;-) Miguel 02:38, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

Besides which, I have a map on my wall that has it with an accent. Montrealais

---

Move page

Based on evidence in Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_attacks (see Usage figures), I believe the name of this article should be changed (yet again) to Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings, to reflect more accurately on how people identify the events. The more vague term attacks is used more correctly in the 9/11 article, because of the nature of those events. --Cantus 22:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • Texture 22:50, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) - But I support it as a redirect.

• Support:

---

Latest news: three alleged terrorists avoided arrest by blowing up an apartment building. I don't have time to follow this up to the minute, but if you speak Spanish you can try to start with [1] — {[User:Miguel|Miguel]]

What role did the bombing play in Spain's withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Willing'?

I can't believe that neither this article, or the one on the bombing, or the main article on Spain addresses this question. Was it removed because it seemed too POV? I think that would have been a mistake. Even if the discussion stirs people emotions, people still want to read an informed discussion of it. -- Geo Swan 01:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You may find some mention of this in the article on José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. The gist of it is this: Zapatero had opposed the invasion of Iraq (like 90% of the spanish people) and made the campaign pledge that he would withdraw troops were he to become Prime Minister, which he promptly did. Miguel 20:56, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

Technically, the bombing had no effect whatsoever. Zapatero had promised as part of his electoral program to withdraw the troops from Iraq long before the Madrid attack took place. He just kept his word, and didn't let the attack change his decission. Raystorm 17:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

March 13

The undeleted paragraphs (see the source!) were out of order in a way that made it look as if the March 13 demonstrations in fact took part on March 12. I encourage you to look at the following diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aftermath_of_the_11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings&diff=22864228&oldid=22381212

Miguel 20:56, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

By the way, looking at the article again, the last two paragraphs referring to the March 13 demonstrations should be merged into the previous "political" section. They are clearly not "observances". Miguel 21:02, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

Edition Of Main Account

I have changed the status of this article to disputed, not because of anything in particular that is happening here, more because of disputes over the content of the main article 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings. There is an editing process going on with this main article that could easily affect the content of this one, and I would like to see all changes made on either article to be done by discussion and consensus. Apart from this 'light' level of protection I have made no changes here. Southofwatford 21:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

General complaints. I ask for a general fix

Randroide 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Following the attacks, initial suspicions focused on the Basque armed separatist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna ("Basque Fatherland and Liberty") or ETA, although suggestions that the Islamist organisation al-Qaida was responsible were also 'immediately advanced.

Immediately?. If I remember well the "Islamist" trail appeared at least 24 hours after the bombings.

And what about the famous Ibarretxe´s line "When Eta attacks, the Basque heart breaks into a thousand pieces" [2]. Not compatible at all with that immediately.

Where is the reference for this immediately, please?.

---

Furthermore, forensic analysis of an undetonated bomb found in a backpack outside El Pozo indicated that neither the explosives nor the detonators used in the attacks were of the type normally used by ETA

We have no idea about what kind of explosives went off in the trains, that´s even an official position of part of the Spanish Judiciary "El Mundo" article, The prosecutor for the Madrid 2004 train attacks say that it is impossible to know what kind of dynamite exploded in the trains.

Use of Titadine (used by ETA) was reported

El análisis de un artefacto colocado junto a una valla de la estación de El Pozo y explosionado por la Policía ha podido determinar que el explosivo estaba compuesto por una mezcla de unos cinco kilos de titadine y nitroglicerina considerada "típica de ETA".[3].

This line must be changed.

---

Randroide 13:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

According to police sources, the attacks were carried out by a group of six Moroccans

Incomplete, therefore false. Unsourced, therefore must go out.

Please compare with this line from the main article:

The perpetrators were local islamic extremists with possible links with al-Qaeda and two Guardia Civil and Spanish police informants. Direct al-Qaeda involvement has been discarded

Notes

---

...forensic analysis of an undetonated bomb found in a backpack outside El Pozo indicated that neither the explosives nor the detonators used in the attacks were of the type normally used by ETA

• Logic 101: The composition of an undetonated bomb says nothing about the composition of the detonated bombs. There´s not "Good Terrorist Handbook" with a rule stating that the same kind of explosive must be used in all the bombs.

• Goma-2 was used by ETA.

• The origin of that backpack has been disputed.

• It has no source.

• I obtained a source that says just the opposite:

El análisis de un artefacto colocado junto a una valla de la estación de El Pozo y explosionado por la Policía ha podido determinar que el explosivo estaba compuesto por una mezcla de unos cinco kilos de titadine y nitroglicerina considerada "típica de ETA".[4].

---

According to police sources, the attacks were carried out by a group of six Moroccans, and it is suspected that one of the bombers died in the blasts, although analysis of the autopsies of the victims had earlier suggested an absence of suicide bombers among the dead .

I can not believe this!!!. The (false as a 3 dolars coin) "suicidal terrorist" is still "alive" in this article!!!. Oh my!!!.

To read more about the "suicidal terrorist in the trains" scam.

The article is as unsourced assertions festival

Randroide 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

+50{{Fact}} tags. This is a mess, and in an article tagged by User:Southofwatford as a "Controversial issue", i.e., a tag that ask you to Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

But, as Southwatford wrote:

I would like to see all changes made on either article to be done by discussion and consensus. Apart from this 'light' level of protection I have made no changes here. [5]

Sure, you made no changes. You simply "protected" a collection of 48 unsourced blocks of text.

Now is time to fix this mess of article. Please come here to have a discussion, reach a consensus and fix this mess, Southofwatford.

---

Southofwatford 06:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC) I have protected it because otherwise you would simply go in there and use the lack of sources as a pretext for removing that information which does not suit your political stance - as you have done recently with the main article. You have shown in that case that you remove information that can easily be sourced - except of course where it backs up the claims made by the conspiracy theorists. Dispute protection is necessary to prevent partisan abuse of this page. If you want this article to be sourced properly then do it by consensus Randroide, not by imposition. Don't use the word consensus until your actions start to match your words, you are currently actively avoiding consensus on the main article by imposing contested changes and ignoring other users objections.

---

Randroide 08:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC) OK. Lets fix the text then.

...you remove information that can easily be sourced

Really?. Then, the only thing you have to do is to source that information. I am not so optimistic as you about the easiness of that task.

...you would simply go in there and use the lack of sources as a pretext for removing that information...

It´s not an "excuse", Southofwhatford, it´s a simple "sanitary" measure: Unsourced text must go out.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. [6]

...OR...

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources...Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor...The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. Wikipedia:Verifiability.

You have a backlog of unanswered questions above, Southofwhatford. Let´s start the work.

---

Southofwatford 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC) See the talk page on the main article - everything is connected and while you continue to reject consensus and dispute resolution guidelines then you are not entitled to unilaterally edit this page or any other that is under dispute [[7]].

---

Randroide 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) This is the talk page for Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings NOT the talk page for 2004 Madrid train bombings.

This is a different article with totally different problems, so, please, lets do something to fix the problems in this article.

You have a lot questions about this article above in this page.

If you have no time now, I suggest (as an emergency temporary measure) to start hiding (not deleting) unsourced statements in the article.

This mess of article is a shame for us, Southofwatford. Please pay some attention to this page.

---

Southofwatford 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I know which page this is, and I know that it has disputed status - when you respect consensus and dispute resolution procedures we can start to talk about what to do with this page. You are currently openly breaking those guidelines and ignoring other user's objections. Do not demand attention for your point of view if you are not to accept the point of view of others.

---

Randroide 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Yo are refusing to pay attention to a mess of a page you "protected", Southofwatford.

Please come here to fix this mess or I will have to call for admin attention.

---

Southofwatford 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I stand by my previous statement, if you are not prepared to respect the disputed nature of this page then go ahead and make your complaint. No threats please, just do it, I am more than prepared to defend my position.

---

Randroide 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC) O.K. An admin has been approached and spoke about the issue [8].

Now, lets try your approach, Southofwatford. Please come here and help fixing this mess of article.

---

Randroide, Durova's response to your poisonous personal attack on me makes absolutely no mention of this article and merely states that arbitration is an appropriate solution after months of dispute. Do not misprepresent administrators conclusions. At the moment you are refusing to recognise the dispute, and are refusing to abide by Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. Thats's the key point; solving this dispute by consensus is not my approach - it is Wikipedia policy.

Why you are suddenly so concerned about this article is a mystery, have you only just read it? I raised the issue of this article more than once last summer when I was making proposals for restructuring the main article. Neither you nor any other user responded on that. The solution for this article forms part of the solution to the dispute on the main article, a dispute which your recent unilateral and partisan actions have made worse. Solve one, and you solve the other.Southofwatford 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{Fact}} template...[]...You can also make unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done. Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long WP:V Randroide 20:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide, Wikipedia policies are not like a menu in a restaurant - you cannot just pick the parts that suit you at any given time and ignore the rest. You have been acting outside of dispute resolution guidelines for almost 1 month now - what is it that makes you think you can ignore objections or arguments of other users whilst at the same time demanding that they attend to whatever issues you choose to raise? This article forms part of the more general dispute on the Madrid bombings and while you refuse to respect that dispute it is hard to see what we can do to solve the problems of any part of it.

---

Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long'' WP:V

I´ll be careful Randroide 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The small fragments of Wikipedia policies that you highlight in bold are not the only ones you are bound to observe - dispute resolution guidelines do not disappear just because you ignore them. Southofwatford 09:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

WP:NOT Randroide 10:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

WP:DR Southofwatford 10:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

There´s no DR procedure going on. Randroide 11:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Really? When did it finish? When a page is disputed then there has to be a process of resolving that dispute. Just because you have freely chosen to ignore attempts to resolve the dispute doesn't mean they don't exist. Southofwatford 11:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Just because you have freely chosen to ignore attempts to resolve the dispute...

XD XD XD

Sorry, I was unable to avoid LOL.

Read the page again, man, if you are not joking.Randroide 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

It's good to laugh, but it still doesn't permit you to avoid dispute resolution. It's not your words that I base my judgement on, its your actions over the last month. Southofwatford 11:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Randroide, your latest changes to this page are absolutely contested because of your refusal to deal with the problems of this page via Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. As far as I am concerned you are acting, yet again, as a rogue user attempting to impose your will on those who disagree with you. Southofwatford 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The (former) problems with this page are treated in WP:V. No consensus needed to remove unsourced assertions. In fact, I waited too much (the page was tagged as unsourced since August 2006). You are free to add sources and thus reintroduce blocks of text.

You are the rogue user, Southofwatford: You are the one who added unsourced statements, though you were wise enough to stop. Congratulations. Randroide 16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

I have submitted a request for arbitration on the dispute affecting this article [[9]]. Southofwatford 20:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Totally disputed}} ?

What is totally disputed here? I am not seeing the issue and can't make out what you are talking about above. Can someone explain this to me?--BirgitteSB 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some conspirationists considered that the bombing was done by Spanish police and the socialdemocrat party. They elaborated a very sophisticated theory and kept insisting on it for years. It is the same that happens in 9/11.--Igor21 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say anything about this. What is totally disputed in the current article? Or are you saying that the omission of these ideas is what is disputed?--BirgitteSB 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It took several months to erase conspirationism from the text of this and other related articles. Conspirationists think that their disagreement with the current text makes the article "totally disputed". For me the "disputed" template should be removed but then probably these guys will appear again with their fringe ideas and their reckless insistence. --Igor21 16:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about all the hidden text?--BirgitteSB 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is mainly good but there are some conspirationist details. I think we should contact Southofwatford who was the one who started the article. I do not know why all this text is hidden. Perhaps it was agree with the main conspirationist -Randroide- as part of some exchange. --Igor21 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no agreement to hide anything - Randroide used the absence of sources in some parts of it as a pretext for hiding text which didn't fit with his political viewpoint. As an example of how to misuse Wikipedia guidelines to achieve personal objectives it's almost perfect. Southofwatford 09:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps now we can un-hidden all this, once there is a judiciary resolution that backs up the text?--Igor21 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's possible to work on it without being involved in endless circular disagreements with conspiracy theorists then I'm happy to help, otherwise life is just too short. Southofwatford 11:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Spains withdrawal from Iraq in ANY of the articles on Spains modern history

Not a word about Spain withdrawing their troops from Iraq as a consequence? On 18 April, 2004 "Spain's new prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has given orders for Spanish troops in Iraq to be brought home in "as short a time as possible". (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3637523.stm and stating so already in March: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3518826.stm Nunamiut (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)