Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 1

''This talk refers to a drastically outdated version of this page; it has since been almost completely re-factored. Thus ... some of the comments below might not make a lot of sense...''

Some suggestions for editors:


 * Avoid duplication by reading the article before adding material
 * All names of organisations and position should be in English
 * All persons should be given their full names and wikified at first reference
 * Conversely, subsequent references should not be wikified
 * Write in the past tense
 * Write in complete sentences, not dot-points
 * Do not write one-sentence paragraphs
 * Do not add facts at random, consider the structure of the article
 * Do not comment out content, move it to the talk page.
 * Do not use an image width bigger than 250 pixels
 * Provide a caption to all images, this caption must be summarized while expanded on its Image: page

''Using HTML header tags breaks the sectioning of the page. Don't do it!''

Article name
The following comes from when the page was named The Madrid Blast

How can it be the Madrid blast when there were multiple explosions? Evercat 14:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest Madrid bombings of March 11, 2004 myself... Evercat 14:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How can the article start with "the madrid blast was...". Is Wikipedia in the business of naming things now? Please an admin rename the article as per Evercat's suggestion. Miguel 14:29, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * Well anyone can move the page. Evercat 14:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. I've followed the same format as for September 11, 2001 attacks - I suspect that this will be seen as Spain's 9/11, so it seems doubly appropriate. -- ChrisO 14:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes... unfortunately this is the Spanish 9/11. Sabbut 15:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to using the event for political advantage and suppression of civil liberties, I'm sure it will be. Miguel 17:32, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * I named the article "the madrid blast" because I couldn't get the right translation from swedish "bombattentatet i madrid"; perhaps i should used "the bomb attentate in madrid"; compare Lockerbie bombing. Anyway, you seems to have got a title for it now. // Rogper 16:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * We managed it in the end. Perhaps you could rename Bombattentatet i Madrid to whatever the Swedish is for "March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks"? -- ChrisO 18:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Number of bombs
I'm not sure there were just 3 bombs, ie see which says 13 bombs (and I've heard 3 successfully defused?) Evercat 14:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's 16 bombs: 13 plus the 3 that were defused... Sabbut 14:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No, the Spanish interior minister Angel Acibes has said there were 10 explosions plus 3 bombs defused. -- ChrisO 15:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * OK... just my confusion Sabbut


 * I heard about an additional bomb at the head of the Atocha train with more explosives that all 13 others combined, which did not explode. I don't know if I believe that. Miguel 15:11, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Previous attempted attacks
BTW... ten days ago (March 1) the Guardia Civil stopped a van that was carrying over 500 kg of explosives for an ETA attack in Madrid. This could be relevant. Sabbut 14:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * A similar interception happened in 1999. Miguel 17:34, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Worth mentioning. BTW, where does the 186 figure come from? I'm still hearing 173. Evercat 15:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * check that quotes indeterminate official sources eiaccb 15:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * El Pais is (unfortunately) not free, check La Vanguardia


 * Also, phone calls from relatives in Madrid relaying radio reports Miguel 15:10, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Wikifrenzy
Just a reminder to the many people working on this article today. Because lots of people are working on it, be very careful not to trip over everyone else's edits. Make sure nothing gets removed from revision to revision. :) RadicalBender 15:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey, please refrain form wikifying and spell checking while people are trying to add facts. Thanks. Miguel 15:08, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * It helps to avoid edit conflicts if you edit only a section at a time. Miguel 19:33, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)


 * It's a bona fide Wikifrenzy... -- ChrisO 15:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I got 9 edit conflicts in a row, and the ninth added the info I was going to add ... In the end all I did was to correct "could" into "couldn't". -- J-V Heiskanen 15:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Someone removed the ext. links... presumably intentional but I don't know why... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Probably accidental - they should be restored with headlines given this time. -- ChrisO 15:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks from Spain
To (in my name but I think in many others') to all those who support the victims by writing about this terrorist attack. Information is our way to peace. Pfortuny 15:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Amen. (and this is coming from a non-believer) -- J-V Heiskanen 15:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * My sympathies to you and your compatriots. Do you live in Madrid? -- ChrisO 15:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No. But it is being undescribable. Pfortuny 15:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I do. Well, I work there, but live some 20 km north. My parents live not too far from Atocha (a 15-minute walk) an I lived there in my youth. eiaccb 15:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * My family lives in Madrid, I was born and raised there. A military officer was once shot in the head by ETA a few block away from my home. Miguel 17:25, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, the closest I have been to a terrorist act was in the Basque Country (where my in-laws are from) and a bomb went off in the middle of the night in the very same building we were sleeping, three stories below us, at a bank office. eiaccb 17:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * About one half of the actions of ETA happen in the Basque country. Miguel 18:10, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * I live about 25 km away from Madrid. Today I didn't have class because of the teachers' strike, so I stayed at home. I have to admit it, it was scary, even 25 km away. Sabbut 18:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Many university students use cercanias to commute to school. It it hadn't been for the strike, there would have been a substantially larger number of people on each train.
 * Was this just a lucky coincidence, or is this "lucky timing" ETA's substitute for a bomb warning?
 * &mdash; Miguel 18:30, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * The date of the attacks was chosen because of the legislative elections on March 14. I don't know much about the strike, but maybe it was chosen as a means to protest against the Madrid government. Maybe September 11, exactly two years and a half ago had something to do. In any case, it could have been even worse. Sabbut 19:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Calle Téllez
The BBC is reporting that four bombs exploded on the street outside Atocha (presumably this is Calle Téllez); the article says that they exploded on a train on Calle Téllez. Which is correct? -- ChrisO 15:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Train by Calle Téllez. which is near Atocha Station. Pfortuny 15:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Both are correct: it exploded in a train on Calle Téllez, which is next to Atocha. Sabbut 15:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My sympathies to Pfortuny and other Spanish friends. The article is moving too fast for me to edit, but the correct format for the election reference Spanish legislative election, 2004. Adam 15:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shoudln't it be Téllez street, why not translate calle? 80.224.97.143 17:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * We don't generally translate non-English street names. See, for instance, Rue de Rivoli or Unter den Linden. -- ChrisO 18:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tactics
This is just not true. Miguel 15:23, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * Should the attacks turn out to be the responsibility of the Basque separatist group it would mark a distinct change in the organisations tactics. Historically their attacks have been against smaller groups or specific individuals and often preceded by a warning.


 * Sorry. I just regurgiated what BBC and Sky are reporting. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with the paragraph? Which part isn't true? Evercat 15:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Smaller groups, well, this is their largest, but they have killed in supermarkets. They did produce less casualties bc they warned. The warning is true.


 * They have used booby traps in the past, and car bombs without warnings when they strike security targets. Miguel 15:30, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * Well, can we say it would be a marked escalation in the size of their attacks? I mean, I think we should get across that this is an unprecidented ETA attack (if an ETA attack it is). Evercat 15:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No, only in the scale of successful attacks. Several car-bombs with hundreds of kilos of TNT have been intercepted on their way to Madrid in the last few years. The largest one was 1,500 kg, scheduled to detonate at 8 pm on some unspecified day during the Christmas holidays. Miguel 15:32, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * But have there ever been 13 at once? Evercat 15:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It is their standard operating procedure to have several delayed bombs set to explode on rescue workers. Miguel 15:35, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * But Miguel, they put them usually around a place, not three or four different locations at the same time. But I may be wrong, this is only my recollection. Pfortuny 15:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That is true, but this is an attack on three consecutive trains on the same line of cercanias, plus the central station. It is an attack on a single target, the commuter rail system. At one train every 20 minutes, this requires less than one hour of coordination and only four people, much less than is presumed in some of the spectacular Al Qaeda atacks. Miguel 17:38, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's OK for me. Pfortuny 15:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I've added the following:


 * Although ETA has a history of mounting bomb attacks in Madrid and has also attempted to attack trains, the March 11 attacks were on a scale far exceeding anything ever previously accomplished by a European terrorist group, leading some to suggest that the terrorists' tactics were more typical of Islamic fundamentalists.


 * This attack is different: not just the lack of warning but the massive coordinated nature of it. It reminds me very much of the Istanbul bombings earlier this year. -- ChrisO 15:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This is not "massive coordination". It's not like they hijacked frour trains: it is two guy coming on and off four trains within 10 minutes at a single station, according to La Vanguardia. One could say that ETA did the planing and cercanias did the coordination. Miguel 18:12, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * Exploding bombs actually isn't very easy; there is a lot that can go wrong and it requires a lot of technical skill. Exploding ten bombs in four separate locations within just four minutes is technically a very difficult feat, and very few terrorist organisations are capable of that level of expertise. I don't think ETA has ever shown that sort of expertise before, though the IRA has (and there are known to have been contacts between the two). But this kind of attack is much more the hallmark of al-Qaida. -- ChrisO 20:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I actually first thought of them rather than ETA. It is much above their style. But now they are desperate. Anyway, the Spanish Gov't is saying it is ETA. Pfortuny 15:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not outside the realm of possibility that they were &quot;inspired&quot; by Al Qaeda tactics in planning this thing. Miguel 15:39, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * There is a common perception of the ETA as the group which specifically targeted Spanish politicians and generals which is apparently not true in recent years. Someone should update the tactics section of the ETA article. Rmhermen 15:38, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * First it was Franco's regime, then it was the police and military, then ordinary people because the security forces improved their security. Since 1990 they have attacked targets of opportunity. They have bombed supermarkets, they have placed booby-trapped wallets on tourist beaches. Then they decided to go after city council people in the basque country, and in 1995 they car-bombed our current president. This is the first of a long series of flashy attempts that has succeeded, but they could have killed thousands in Christmas of 1999 (I think), it is suspected that they wanted to bomb the underground parking lot of the largest departemet store in Madrid. Oh, and half the people they have killed were in the basque country. Miguel 15:47, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

There is something funny about the terrorists leaving a van parked in one of the stations with seven detonators, koranic verses and tapes in arabic. It almost seems like planted evidence.

Compare this to ETA's standard operating procedure, which includes two stolen vehicles, one used in the actual action and another one used to run away. The vehicle used in the action is driven to a meeting point with the other vehicle, loaded with explosives and left behind to explode at a later time. Sometimes a warning is given ant it is the police that explodes the vehicle under controlled conditions. ETA would never leave a vehicle behind with evidence like this.

&mdash; Miguel 02:37, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

Timeline
FWIW see this timeline if it is of interest. Pfortuny 15:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Main page
Why is this event not on the main page already, BTW? Miguel 15:33, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC) +

It is. Evercat 15:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Terrorists POV?
So, how exactly is describing the people who committed these murders as terrorists POV in an unreasonable sense? I really would like to know how else to describe ETA or Al Qaida, the two groups in the frame for this at the moment. They murder civilians, they do not go after military targets. They are terrorists, they are not freedom fighters, and to merely describe ETA as separatists is to disparage those separatists who go about things within the law. David Newton 15:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Call them organized crime if you think that's more neutral. Miguel 17:41, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * People who are able to negotiate where they are going not to kill look very much like terrorists. This is what they did two months ago with a Catalonian politician. Pfortuny 15:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This was discussed at length in Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. I recommend that you read that discussion. -- ChrisO 16:06, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I did then. No problem, the above was just a rant. Pfortuny 16:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Al-Qaida connection?

 * Others, including ETA supporters, have suggested that al-Qaida was involved, possibly in response to Spain's support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, although the kind of explosives used is consistent with ETA involvement.


 * Has anyone other than Batasuna suggested it might be someone other than ETA? Pete/Pcb21 (talk)


 * No, the Minister of Interior Affairs has said that is a "smoke curtain" on their side. Pfortuny 16:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Our article is badly phrased, then? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The Spanish govt. has said that it's not ruling out any possibilities. See Reuter's at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1135150.htm . -- ChrisO 16:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the idea is we have to convince the people right now that it is ETA bc ETA is one of the main problems in Spain. Although we cannot rule out any other possibility, obviously. Pfortuny 16:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I find it funny that anyone in Spain would first think of Al Qaeda. I understand that of anglo-saxon media, but not of anyone in Spain who does not have a vested interest in protecting ETA. Miguel 17:42, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * But there is at least a very plausible motive for possible Al Qaeda involvement -- and if so then it is worrying for us in the UK, which was (for some stupid reason) even more enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq invasion. But whoever did it, I hope justice catches up with them, and does so quickly. This vicious attack was wholly unacceptable.  Madrileños - nosotros ingleses no les olvidaramos a ustedes.  --Trainspotter 20:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) (P.S. sorry, my login ID really isn't meant to cause offence in this context; it was created long before this all happened)


 * All I was arguing is that the knee-jerk reaction of any Spaniard would be to blame ETA. Once evidence starts coming in pointing to the contrary, that's a different story. Now I think only the government holds on to the ETA hypothesis. Miguel 22:12, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)


 * Why do we have to convince people of anything? We're just reporting what has been said, after all. -- ChrisO 16:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * "We" is the Spanish Gov't, not us. Sorry for my English.Pfortuny 16:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I was speaking of their thought, not what has to be said). Pfortuny 16:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I did a re-wording. I hope I am accurately reflecting the situation as reported by your news. I am sure I will be reverted quickly if not! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * (indentation backwards). It is OK for me (it is very new news and info is scant on the subject). Thx. Pfortuny 16:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

World reaction
Is it worth adding the worldwide condemnation of this attack? A list of people who have spoken can be found at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-11-spain-world-reax_x.htm. Perhaps not that important? Side-note: Jack Straw used the phrase &quot;shoulder to shoulder&quot;, Blair said the same to Bush on 9/11, some press picking up on this, and sure is not a co-incidence Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think so. We should start giving this article sections.  Responsibility, or some such verbage should be in its own section (as it will grow larger over time as an investigation proceeds) and World Reaction should be given its own section as well. RadicalBender 16:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More on Calle Téllez explosion
I've removed this from the article:


 * It was also loaded with two larger bombs, at the head and center of the train, which, according to experts, were designed to bring down the entire station.

There's a Reuters image of the train destroyed at Calle Téllez here. The damage shown to the train is severe, but it is localised: it would certainly not have brought down the station. If you look carefully you can see that the electric pylons are still largely intact, as are the end carriages of the train on the right of the image. It would have needed a much bigger explosion to have destroyed the entire station, and such a large explosion would certainly have destroyed the entire train. The station could have been destroyed if attacked directly (e.g. by destroying the ceiling supports) but this clearly didn't happen. -- ChrisO 17:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is the original source: (La Vanguardia)

It talks about two *unexploded* bombs, and mentions the fact that the train did not explode in the station because it was delayed by a few minutes. Miguel 17:49, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * Los terroristas pretendían hacer coincidir la explosión de los artefactos colocados en dos de los trenes a su llegada a la estación de Atocha, lo que hubiera provocado la voladura de este recinto. En el tren que explosionó en la calle Téllez, a un kilómetro de la estación, había al menos otras dos bombas, situadas en el centro y en la cola del convoy. Este tren habría coincidido en su llegada a la estación con el anterior de no haber sido por los dos minutos de retraso que llevaba. Las fuentes consultadas señalaron que, de haber hecho explosión ambos trenes en el mismo lugar, el efecto multiplicador de los explosivos y las características arquitectónicas de la estación habrían causado su derrumbe, provocando aún más víctimas mortales.


 * The three unexploded bombs are reported to have been located in cars, not trains (presumably parked outside the station, with the intention of catching the emergency services) - see http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1496713,00.html . -- ChrisO 17:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You are referring to the booby-traps for rescue workers. The article refers to additional bombs on the Tellez train to replicate the structure of the Atocha train explosion (head, center and rear). Miguel 18:17, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Times
How do we specify the times so that users around the world understand? What I mean is, obviously, we use local time, but since Spain is in the same time zone as UTC, do we make a note of that? Like "7:56 a.m. local time (UTC)"?

I'm probably overthinking this. Is it even important to indicate which time zone Spain is in? (Probably not so much for Europeans, but us Americans never remember which countries are in which time zones.) RadicalBender 18:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spain is not UTC; it's UTC+1 if I remember correctly (same as France), except the Canary Islands which are UTC. Montrealais

Well, I checked the time zone article and they say Spain is UTC (although, they do honor DST). RadicalBender 19:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Continental Spain (like France) is CET, that amounts to UTC+1 during the winter and UTC+2 when daylight saving kick in. eiaccb 19:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Montrealais is correct. The map at Time zone (check the larger image) puts Portugal in UTC, but Spain (mainland) in UTC+1. -- Toby Bartels 19:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, you learn something new every day. Regardless, can we add UTC+1 to the times (or at least the first one) somewhere then? RadicalBender 19:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. -- ChrisO 20:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, UTC is Greenwich Mean Time (well, without the confusing forward-one-hour in the summer aspect of it), which is an hour behind continental Europe. Moncrief, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * To be precise, you signed at 19:51 UTC and my clock says 20:51, and I am in mainland Spain. :) Pfortuny 19:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Possible source
Include information from http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/8162057.htm? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

worst terrorist attacks ever?
Around September 15th, 1999, bombings of tenements in Moscow and other cities took a death toll of about 300. One might rate these as the worst terrorist attacks in Europe. It doesn't have to be the worst to be bad, so maybe one should take back this phrase without losing anything.


 * It was Spain's worst ever terrorist attack, far surpassing the second-worst (a bombing carried out by the Basque terrorist group ETA on a supermarket belonging to the Hipercor chain in Barcelona in 1987, which killed 21 and wounded 40).

I do have a problem with this sentence.
 * 1) the word terrorist reflects one point of view towards the ETA (or whoever who did this). Actually, I consider both ETA and al-qaeda as terrorist groups but this does not make this word acceptable. It's okay to say that spanish media, spanish politicians call this as the worst ever terrorist attac. However,
 * 2) what about the Guernica bombing by German legion condor? This can be seen as a terrorist attac (no matter that they were backed by a (terrorist) state. Over 1500 people died during this Guernica bombing so I can't see why today's tragedy is the worst terrorist attac in Spain ever.


 * Guernica happened in the context of a war (it was an action carried out by military forces, and arguably constituted a war crime), whereas the Madrid attacks were carried armed civilians in peacetime. The two events are not comparable. -- ChrisO 17:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, so is there anyone who might propose a more NPOV like sentence? -- Presroi 17:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Call them an "armed group" instead of "terrorist group" if you need to.


 * This is the worst *attack* of any nature during peacetime.


 * This is probably all that needs to be said. For most people, any attack during peacetime will be considered terrorism, so they get the idea; but apologists that don't want to call this terrorism can't dispute this statement either. (The essence of NPOV ^_^!) -- Toby Bartels 19:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Was Lockerbie a terrorist attack?


 * Does Tarzan shit in the jungle?


 * The point being, if you can't call the medrid bombings a terrorist attakc, why can you call Lockerbie a terrorist attack. And, of course, Tarzan does not shit, he fertilizes. Miguel 04:04, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)


 * The bombing of Gernika is a war crime, not terrorism. It does not even qualify as state terrorism because it happened in war time.


 * What, there's some law of nature that it's impossible to instill people with fear (to terrorise them) in the middle of a war? -- Toby Bartels 19:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a phenomenon called "terrorism" which can happen at any time, and there's the crime of "terrorism" which has a very specific legal meaning. If an act of terrorism takes place in wartime, it's treated as a crime against humanity or a violation of the laws of war. (This is what happened with the Yugoslav atrocities.) If it happens in peacetime, it's treated as a "ordinary" crimanal offence. However, it's generally not very useful to label war crimes as "terrorism" as this confuses the issue with peacetime terrorism, which isn't generally considered a war crime. -- ChrisO 20:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Miguel 17:46, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

I've put in the following weasel words:


 * Observers typically classify the attacks as an act of terrorism.

If this "typically" language is disputed, then we would have to be more specific. But I doubt that it is disputed; maybe if ETA claims responsibility, then they'll also claim that it's not terrorism, but for now probably nearly every commentator agrees. -- Toby Bartels 19:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it is better to be silent than to use weasel words. I'd rather take them away than have that sentence in any article. Pfortuny 19:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Unless the word "terrorism" has been totally banned from Wikipedia (which wouldn't surprise me), it belongs in this article, without weaseling. Adam 01:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * ETA is not (yet) classified as a terrorist group in the world, besides in the US. Please keep that in mind,  how strange it may sound. There is a swedish, german and french word "attentat" (from latin attentatum) which has no real similarity in english; its translated to "unlawful action" or  "(attempted) assassination"  or "attack" into english. This act, whetever it is an terrorist act or not, is certainly a "Bomb-attentatum". // Rogper 03:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, just to be clear, the EU classified the ETA as a terrorist organization as well. (Not making a judgment either way, though.)  RadicalBender 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It would also be a terrorist act even if it turns out the Red Cross is behind it. - Nunh-huh 03:54, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could we please conduct debates here, at the foot of the page, so others can find them? Adam 04:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me as trying to say ETA is legatimated, please. However, there is a different with "separatist" and "terrorist". Anyway, RadicalBender claimed EU has graded ETA to terrorist organisation, so that makes period. Attentatium or "attentate" would be an alternative word for terror act. To be honesty, I don't think (al-Qaida) terror acts in Europe will results in "terror"; instead, it will only justify political leaders to take out revenge to kill people in the middle east or wherever. Just my cents. // Rogper 05:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Which just goes to show that no matter how disgusting any particular act of terrorism, there will always be someone willing to make excuses for it. Adam 05:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just another rant from Spain... what is a peace-time attack? If it is not terrorist then you might as well assume that ETA and/or Al-Qaida think are in war against Spain (which ETA claims and Al-Qaida does also), so ... are we in peace? I fear we are losing the sense of proportion regarding the terror word. It has become a real taboo. I thought we had overcome them, but maybe we have simply changed ones for others. Pfortuny 08:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Spain has been declared as being in war, but note that a country in war doesn't normally obey normally laws and that some insurance might not be payed back. // Rogper 20:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Political implications
From the Washington Post:


 * The Aznar government's support for the Iraq war was deeply unpopular among citizens, with polls indicating that 90 percent of the population was against it. Spain's involvement in Iraq had become a campaign issue, with the opposition Socialist Party promising to reverse the policy and bring troops home.


 * While Spain's close ties to the Bush administration over Iraq have received little approval, its stance against ETA has been highly popular. The candidate of the governing Popular Party, Mariano Rajoy, has promised to continue the policy pursued by Aznar, who is stepping down after eight years in power. Rajoy's campaign had tacitly accused his Socialist challenger, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, of being softer on terrorism.

I don't know whether )or where) this belongs in the article, but I personally agree with this analysis. Interestingly, I haven't found such a clear statement of this in the Spanish commentary, let alone news coverage. Miguel 04:54, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

I have expanded the articles on Rajoy and R Zapatero and have mentioned this aspect in both articles. I don't think politics belong in this article. They can be discussed at Spanish legislative election, 2004. Adam 05:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

911 days after 9/11
Both this article and March 9, 2004 attack on restaurant frequented by freemasons claim to be 911 days after 9/11. One of them must be incorrect. ANyone good at counting. Rmhermen 13:52, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Current events (at least I think it was there where all the different ways of counting days (i.e. including or excluding each of the end dates) can be used to wedge 911 into either story. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Both are incorrect 03.11.2004-9.11.2001 = 912 days. RobertMichel 23:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 911 days between 911 and 11M. [anonymous]


 * So what? I think numerologie is Demagogue! Yesterday it was only an Internet Hoax but today I'm shocked that the news agency Agence France-Presse published this hoax without calculating themself. Today many mass medias reports it was exaclty 911 days after Nine Eleven - this is worng and a Hoax. See | news.google (911 days) with1280 hits! What do you think to place a text like I did in the German version into the article:RobertMichel 20:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hoax: 911 days after September 9th 2001
In the internet but also the news agencie Agence_France-Presse is spreading a hoax that the mach 11th 2004 would have been 911 days after the September_11,_2001_attacks. This is worng. 2004 is a Leap_year so the March 11th 2004 has been 912 days after the WTC attacks.


 * What do you think? RobertMichel 20:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I feared that Hoax will be edited into error, error into claim and latly claim into proof. Why does I put the wrong number game of AFP into this artikel? I want to stress that all mysterious number games are demagogue and more hoax than proofs. It would be totaly different when it is proof that both attacks are from the same group and it claims it used 911 days inbetween this dates to have a more mystic media report. Everythink else is like reading in coffee-grounds. I don`t what to read in coffe-grounds, I want to stress that this is not poof, nor a claim. So please leave it as hoax or remove it. AFAIK is Wikipedia not for speculations. RobertMichel 23:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We reckoned on that talk page that this attack was 912 days after, and the freemason attack 910... Evercat 17:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, 3/11/04 is two and a half years after 9/11/01. Maybe just coincidence...I certainly wouldn't suggest that terrorist attacks will only occur on the 11th of the month. }:-( Lee M 20:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hoax: something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage -- THIS IS NOT A HOAX, JUST AN ERROR --Cantus 00:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

TNT?
What is the source for the TNT information? AFAIK is it unknown which expolsive was used.rob


 * It is not titadine see here. (Spanish) Pfortuny 17:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Picture and GNU-FDL
What is the source and licenze of these pictures? Sorry, but this photo are only a Copy&Paste one and not one to use with GNU/FDL. Please try to find a free photo, for example of demonstrations against terrorism/barbarismus of today. rob

Is it possible to resize this picture for insertion in the demonstrations section? Miguel 18:45, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)


 * Just use the Extended Image Syntax. RadicalBender 20:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)



I uploaded the following smaller version



Pfortuny 20:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems that 11-M will became populare like 9-11. Who made this sticker? The goverment (PP) called for the demonstration, 2 days bevor the election, so I fear that it could be a political election campain - to remove my doubts please write more about this sticker. My intention was to have pictures of protesting people, I can only serve a picture from a 90 people (mostly spanisch ersamus-stutends) demonstation in here in Aachen. BTW i guess this 90 people are to view to mention in the article. -- rob

I don't know who made this sticker, but it has been circulated on the internet (I got it by email) for people to print and bring along to demonstrations.

It has become customary for people to demonstrate immediately after a terrorist attack (as happened on March 11). Politicians have jumped on the bandwagon and now at every demonstration the government takes part in it, along with all political party leaders, unions, NGOs, what have you. This is strictly non-partisan (although sometimes there is partisan bickering on the mottos and separate demonstrations are held) and it should not be considered suspicious that the government took part in the organization of the demonstrations. If you look at this picture you'll see from left to right the interior minister, opposition leader, out-going president, prince, and two prncesses. The opposition leader and president could not be using this for political purposes and showing up side by side. Miguel 23:26, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

Look out for ETA
For Miguel especially. [http:www.elmundo.es here] they say ETA denies authorship. Pfortuny 17:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have been culling stuff from La Vanguardia, maybe it's time to start digging from El Mundo. &mdash; Miguel 18:21, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

Please view my little article about the basque neswpaper Gara - Arne List 19:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I translated it to English: Gara. Miguel 22:31, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)


 * Gracias :-) -- Arne List 23:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alcala de Henares
Alcala de Henares is East of Madrid, and the commuter rail line that was bombed starts there and describes an arc entering Madrid from the southeast. Miguel 18:40, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)


 * Gracias. The edit that I made is good then.  Or, if you want, you can replace the north I took out with "east," but I don't think it's necessary, since the location of A.d.H. is mentioned previously.  Moncrief, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Football
The UEFA refused to allow Spanish football teams to suspend their matches scheduled for 11 and 12 March, and the teams are complying with this decision.

Is this correct? It was reported before the matches here (in the UK) that the games were continuing as scheduled at the insistence of the Spanish Government, who did not wish to allow the terrorists to be seen to have succeeded in disrupting normal events. -- Arwel 19:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Football Club Barcelona asked for their match on March 11 to be delayed but it was not allowed (source here for example. However, the Spanish Gv't has insisted on normality. Pfortuny 20:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand it from my poor Spanish and the machine translation, the decision was jointly made by UEFA, the Spanish Government, and the (Spanish?) Football Federation, so as it is at the moment the article reads as rather too critical of UEFA. -- Arwel 21:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wrote it in a rush. Would you mind fixing it? Thanks. Pfortuny 21:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. Arwel 21:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How many bombs?
There seems to be a problem with the tally of bombs.

By my count, this article mentions:
 * 3 bombs that exploded on the Atocha train
 * 4 bombs that exploded on the Tellez train
 * 2 bombs that did not explode on the Tellez train
 * 2 bombs that exploded on the El Pozo train
 * 1 bomb that exploded on the Sta Eugenia train
 * 2 bombs that did not explode in cars outside Atocha
 * 1 bomb that did not explode in a car outside El Pozo

For a total of 15 bombs, of which 3 did not explode. Of those, 11 bombs targeted Atocha station (the Atocha train, the Tellez train, and the car bombs). 9 of these were on trains, of which 7 exploded.

However, the article says there were 13 bombs, and that 6 targeted Atocha station. What am I missing? Montrealais

Maybe you can check the timeline at El Mundo (see external links) and fix this. I have been noticing the inconsistencies, too. Miguel 20:05, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

Only 3 explosions at Tellez. I'll try to fix it. From El mundo. Pfortuny 20:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(My public apologies for the mess-up with this page, especially to RadicalBender... Pfortuny 20:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem. Just trying to direct traffic on this page is all.  :-)  RadicalBender 20:31, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Title translation
Vice-president Javier Arenas defended...  -- I'm a little confused about the position occupied by this person. Is he J-M Aznar's deputy? The Spanish "President of the Government" title has caused confusion before (in the White House, I believe!) and should be translated into English as Prime Minister. Similarly, if Sr Arenas is Aznar's deputy, then he should be described as Deputy Prime Minister. -- Arwel 03:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In Spain we do not consider the President of the Government as "prime minister to the King" except possibly in the strictest legalistic sense. Similarly, members of the cabinet are called ministros, and are not members of a gabinete but members of a gobierno, and are perceived as being ministers to the president, not to the King. The fact that the terms have caused confusion in the White house is a statement about the White house. Apparently Bush had trouble understanding that Aznar does not own a ranch. Do the terms also cause confusion in Britain?

We also call our legislature "parlamento" and the lower house "congreso". Is the fact that this is inconsistent with the name of the USA's legislature and lower house a justification for translating "parlamento" as "congress" and "congreso" as something else? I don't think so.

But this is the English wikipedia and I'll defer to whatever English speakers think is the correct translation.

Miguel 04:21, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

In English a President is a head of state and a Prime Minister is a head of government. Any other usage causes great confusion. The only exception seems to be for Germany and Austria where Chancellor is used. Arenas should be called Deputy Prime Minister, whatever his Spanish title might be (the Spanish title can be put in brackets). Likewise, in English a legislative body can be called a parliament, a legislature or a congress. All three terms are understood to mean the same thing. I think legislature is most "neutral" of these terms. Again, the correct name can be put in brackets after. "The Spanish legislature (the Cortes) has passed a bill etc". Adam 05:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The misunderstanding comes from assuming that President stands for president of the nation. But President is a more general term, it is just someone who presides over something. Aznar is Presidente del Gobierno and Gobierno in Spanish is a false friend, it is literally the Council of Ministers, so the direct translation would be President of the Council of Ministers. What he is not is President of Spain (we are a kingdom). So I think the formal title should be given once, and then abbreviated to Prime Minister in the sequel. Same for Arenas. I don't think there is a simple solution for these things, you should se the problems we have with things like Secretary of State, Chief of Staff, General Surgeon or Chancellor of the Exchequer. eiaccb 07:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopaedia, and the conventional English usages must be followed. In English a President is a head of state and a Prime Minister is a head of government. In English Aznar is "Prime Minister of Spain," and what he is called in Spanish is irrelevant. Adam 08:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course, of course, this is your wikipedia, it is not for us to speak on these matters. But at last I saw why I have not been understanding your position.  It is that 'President' in English is very rarely used, so you are quick to expect some meanings from the word.  For most cases where we would use 'Presidente', you would use 'Chairman' instead.  So for us it is very unspecific and needs to be qualified unless the context is very well understood.  So this only comes to show how limited our mastery of English really is, even though we may delude ourselves into thinking otherwise at times. eiaccb 09:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, during the second spanish republic (1931-1936), we had Presidente de la Republica and Presidente del Gobierno. The "cabinet" is never called gabinete, but variously consejo de ministros (the name of their weekly Friday meeting), gobierno and ejecutivo. Eiaccb is right about President translating more properly as chairman. Although there is an argument to be made for using the most common translation in the English-speaking press, to trust the judgement of foreign press on things like this is like judging their reporting of scientific discoveries. Miguel 17:47, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

May I propose you to consider using the term Minister President, which would not confuse readers limited to the English language, but have the advantage of being closer to the original?--212.181.86.76 22:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Breaking up the article?
Also this article is getting too long. I propose that this article be confined to the events of March 11, and that everything else be put in a new article, Aftermath of the March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks. Adam 08:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article is too long, and full of stuff that acts more like "meat on the bone" (like demonstrations, reactions etc.). I say go for it :) --Vikingstad 08:28, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will wait a bit and see what others say.

Also, I don't think it's very appropriate that Viking's picture of the demonstration in Barcelona shows the hammer-and-sickle banner of some fringe Communist group, and only a small number of people. If there were 1.5 million people in the P de Gracia, a more representative photo would be better. Adam 08:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I uploaded a new one. Is it any better? --Vikingstad 08:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the main page there is a paragraph about this (new version referring to the demonstrations). If a new article about the "demonstrations etc..." appears, you could link to it at the "gather". (I'm not being around for a while). This is the place to edit those news headers. Pfortuny 09:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article has not reached a stable state yet, although it might soon. There is not much more to add by way of facts, and now that there is a Judicial investigation underway the judge will most likely declare the proceedings secret (secreto de sumario). On the other hand, there are a lot of factual inconsistencies and incomplete information, and it would be good if the article stayed in one piece while those are sorted out. We may yet decide to rearrange the sections. When the article is stable it can be broken up. Miguel 17:47, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

bomb outrages in peace time (Was: Lockerbie)
Lockerbie produced more casualties, so it should be reworded. This, however, is currently to 186 dead and over 1000 injured. Let's all pray it stays at that. --eiaccb 14:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * They are still pulling dead bodies from wrecks and people are dying in hospitals... Miguel 14:55, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * You guys edit so fast... :-) --eiaccb 14:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this happening in Madrid is the worst even if not that many people died, because there were almost one thousand of peoples injuried (183 + 600 = 783 people). In lockerbie, about 300 hundred was killed. So I'm planning to add this make this act one of the worst terror attack in Europe in peace-time. // Rogper 16:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * We're up to 190 and 1247... Miguel 18:09, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * Actually Lockerbie did not produce more casualties. There were about 100 more killed, but far, far, far less injured. The definition of casualties is the combined total of killed, injured and those who later die of their injuries. In a military sense it also often includes those taken prisoner, but that is obviously not applicable here.


 * I'm not sure how many people were injured at Lockerbie, but it was probably less than 100. Only 11 people were killed on the ground, and the ground is the only place where injuries would have happened. Everyone on the flight was killed. So, if we assume that Lockerbie saw 100 injured, add in the 270 killed on the plane and the 11 on the ground, then we have a casualty count of 391. Here there over 1,000 casualties. David Newton 16:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm changing the sentece in the first paragraph from
 * ... making the attacks the deadliest in Western Europe since the Lockerbie bombing of December 21, 1988, and inflicting the greatest number of casualties in any terrorist attack in a European country in modern times.

to
 * ... making the attacks one of the worst bomb outrages in Europe in peace time.

This does not mean we have regret the Lockerbie bombing or the Moskva siege. // Rogper 14:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jiang's opinion of article
You people are too enthusiastic. Not every single fact you read in the news belongs here -- only significant ones. Encyclopedia articles are not narratives. They are only supposed to state the significance of things. --Jiang 09:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jiang, I agree there is too much news-narrative in the article at present, but over time it will settle down and become more encyclopaedic. And the fact is that WP is now functioning as a news agency, so we should focus on making its news coverage accurate and balanced rather than denouncing it. Actually I think the article is a fairly impressive piece of article-writing-on-the-run at the moment. Adam 09:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of course, there are too many things in the article at present, but as with everything, it is better to have an overinformative article and prune them afterwards than having to do the research after all the news have become both old news and been lost in the "historical articles" of the news agencies. We are all aware of its being too detailed, but general criticisms without specifics are not much helpful. Pfortuny 11:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Es increible

Es increïble con que rapideza se puede hacer un artículo detallado como este. Felicidades.

Translation: It is incredible how rapidly one can make/create a detailed article like this one. Congratulations.

Arrests
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3509212.stm "Spanish authorities have arrested five suspects... the arrested men were three Moroccans and two Indians." FYI. –Hajor 19:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Bomb
here's a diagram of the explosive devices. It seems Cell Phones alarms or calls into them were used to detonate the devices simultaneously.

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2004/graficos/mar/s2/bomba.gif

Miguel 22:00, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

Infobox
I just removed this from the objectives section of the infobox:


 * To pressure US-allied to end their alliance against Islamic countries (the war on terrorism).

This objective presupposes that ETA were not responsible, so far they haven't been ruled out. It can go back in if and when we confirm that it was an Islamic fundamentalist group to blame. fabiform | talk 23:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But can we know anything about the objectives at all? ETA has not announced any objectives. --Ruhrjung 00:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

INFOBOX removal
A user by the name of 'Wik' is repeatedly removing the INFOBOX without any discussion. What do you all think, is the infobox important to have or not?

Opinions...

--Cantus 23:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's vitally important to have it. It summarizes information about the attack in a clean and efficient way.  --Moncrief 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. 2 to 1. --Cantus 23:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Me too. 3 to 1. --Ruhrjung 00:06, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The infobox is pointless repetition. Are we going to have summary boxes at every article now? Infoboxes should only be for additional information that is not suitable to be presented in the running text, such as those in the country articles. If you want to have a summary, that's simply what the first paragraph is for (or the first two paragraphs if necessary). --Wik 00:08, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Well... shouldn't this information be in the introduction (a lot of it already is of course, so why repeat on the right hand side of the screen what we've got written on the left hand side)? See News style. I have a couple of problems with the infobox; some parts of it really do seem to be duplicating information that is very clear in the article. Like that the objective was to instill terror, that's just a definition of terrorism. I don't think an infobox for events such as this is a standard practice in wikipedia, so if we're going to use one we need to better define its purpose and refine its contents. fabiform | talk 00:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah! I came here to suggest the removal! I think the article is very well done - congratulations to the editors - but the infobox is a bit funny. See the medium and objective sections, for instance. Do we need a definition of terrorism there? Keep date, casualties and facts. I think the rest should go. Muriel 01:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the removal of the sections Objectives and Consequences. I think the others are of great value for a first-time reader of the article, and it does (in my eyes) contribute to the article's credibility and its seriousness. --Ruhrjung 01:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I also came here to suggest that the infobox has problems. I think the consensus is that there are problems with prose in such boxes. Let's see what's left after Adam has performed his surgery/butchery :-) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Worst peacetime bomb attack in Europe"
I'm finding this statement a little nebulous, and would like clarification. I've also read this statement, and assume "peacetime" is just another way of saying "since World War II." I'd suggest changing it to "since World War II" if so, since "peactime" could mean anything from the Middle Ages on down, when Europe was at peace. Also, I think it's stronger and also accurate to say "worst act of terrorism in Europe since World War II." It's not specifically the worst BOMB attack, I don't think, but the worst act of ANY kind of terrorism in Europe (from airport shootings to bombs to any other sort of terrorism). Moncrief, 13 Mar 2004

If it's stronger to write "act of terrorism" instead of "peacetime bomb attack", then don't write it. We should try to let facts speak for themselves, and not try to enhance with propagandisms. --Ruhrjung 00:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, but do you see that something can simultaneously be the worst bomb attack since World War II AND, at the exact same time, also the worst act pf terrorism? One is not more untrue than another necessarily.  It's just another way of phrasing the information.  Moncrief, 14 Mar 2004


 * I see it as a matter of credibility. Personally, I like the BBC-style and not the Fox-style. I've nothing against variations in the prose, but what I commented on was the choise between two wordings which for me differ mainly in their propagandist charge.


 * Of course it is an act of terrorism, but that is well known. Over-using the terrorism-word gives at least me a feeling of the text taking part in other and bigger conflicts and trying to influence the reader, i.e. me, in these conflicts too. When the reader get such an impression, the credibility of the message is diminished. (BTW, that harms also the wikipedia-project as a whole.)
 * --Ruhrjung 00:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's the point, and I then I don't need to say anything more since I believe you're overthinking this and I'll let others have their say. To me, it's clearer to say "act of terrorism" because acts of terrorism come in many forms: gun attacks with or without hostages (as in the Rome airport in the 1980s and the 1972 Munich Olympics), attacks by plane (9/11, though obviously not in Europe) and bomb attacks.  I'm not sure why there is this need to perceive the use of the phrase "act of terrorism" as some sort of Fox News propaganda (and it's not as if the BBC wouldn't use the word "terrorism").  Calling it the "worst act of terrorism" instead of just the "worst bomb attack", if indeed that is true, means that one can compare this with any other terrorist action and not just bomb attacks specifically.  To me, that makes the article more clear.  Moncrief, 14 Mar 2004


 * Maybe it needs some editing, yes. --Cantus 00:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * "the worst bomb attack in Europe since World War II." Are we certain there was no day of bombings in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, or in the Greek Civil War, that was worse? - SimonP 01:19, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I think "worst peacetime attack in Europe since World War II" might be ok, or I can revert. But to me, this is another reason to call it "the worst terrorist attack since World War II" - it's a cleaner statement that excludes the Balkan War (wartime).  This phrase has been used in the media, such as 1 Moncrief, 14 Mar 2004

Copyvio
This page is now apparently a copyvio from the Associated Press. ie see an example AP-sourced website at: --Evercat 00:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Most of the info has been edited out. Further wording may be welcomed to distance it from the original AP article. The facts are important to keep though. --Cantus 00:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm about to remove Image:MadridBlastMap.jpg from the article because of similar concerns. –Hajor 01:36, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Commented-out passage from intro
TOO MANY DETAILS, AND INFO PRESENTED WHICH HAS NOT EVEN BEING FULLY EXPLAINED UNTIL FURTHER DOWN


 * The Spanish government considers ETA the most likely culprit, although it has not ruled out other possibilities. Basque separatists, some international sources, and a van found outside the train station in Alcalá de Henares point to al-Qaida. There have been claims (so far unconfirmed) that a previously unknown Islamic fundamentalist group calling itself the Lions of al-Mufridun has claimed responsibility, while the London Arabic language newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi on March 11 reported receiving a communication purporting to claim responsibility on behalf of an al-Qaida faction. On March 12, the Basque newspaper Gara and Basque public TV Euskal Telebista received communications from ETA denying any involvement in the attacks.


 * Around 9 pm CET on Saturday, March 13, it became known that a video tape was found in Madrid in which Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks "in response for the crimes of Bush and his allies" . Radio station Cadena SER accuses the government of knowing about the tape since 11 am and lying about it, and also of hiding a similar audio tape found in the van at El Pozo.

I have moved the paragraphs above from the intro, where they were commented out. It is always better to move sections to Talk pages than commenting them out in the source. Miguel 02:28, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting this info be removed, I just think it should be more carefully edited and rewritten, in order to give a global view of the aftermath of the event. In its current form it is poor. If you see the 9/11 page, the aftermath intro encompasses info from several months after the event. With time, and depending on how events unfold, the above info will change to something probably completely different. -- Cantus 03:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Government misinformation
The gist of this story in Der Spiegel is the the Spanish government instructed all embassies to blame ETA for the attacks in the face of overwhelming evidence of Al-Qaeda involvement. My German is, unfortunately, not up to the task of excerpting and translating the article. Would any German speaker like to help? &mdash; Miguel 03:09, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * Did you not see a Cadena Ser (with all that that implies, I suppose) story datelined 12/3 on more or less the same issue? ("Ana Palacio sends out letters to all the embassies.") Would you like to see it? –Hajor 03:32, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If that were true it would be really disgusting. -- Cantus 03:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That and more is what Saturday's demonstrations are about. Miguel 05:02, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * El Pais reports that Aznar personally called newspaper directors on Friday evening to assure them that ETA was responsible. Miguel 05:41, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

This is it. Miguel 03:42, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * Reuters is also carrying the story, in English: here. -- Cantus 03:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Downsizing the article?
As of this post, this article is around 110 KB of size by the text (47 KB) and the images (63 KB). This is harmful for low-speed modem visitors. I like pictures, so, could we start to crop down the article? For example, pointing out things like reactions to its own page? I dunno, something like March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks reactions. *shrug* --Maio 07:59, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to have subpages to the article? Miguel 08:07, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * We could do sth similar to the September 11, 2001 attacks. For starters, the days after could be put in a new page called March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks_reactions and the details of the investigation in March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks_reactions. Pfortuny 08:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The 9/11 attacks page are filled with useful facts and it's hard to navigate through so many articles. --Jiang


 * Cut the crap first. Statements like "On March 12, Basque TV station Euskal Telebista and the Basque newspaper Gara reported receiving notes from persons claiming to represent ETA and denying responsibility for the explosions. (CBC)" will be gone as soon as they find out for sure who did it. --Jiang 08:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If it is true that the Spanish government lied through their teeth for 48 hours about ETA, the "crap" will belong in its own article about the political consequences of the attacks. Miguel 16:32, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

Protest turnout numbers are wrong (Las Palmas, for instance. Actual numbers were at least 200 000). And the black ribbon is not a ribbon of mourning. It is a symbol of the fight against terrorism. Same as the pink one is a symbol of the fight against AIDS. Rumpelstiltskin 09:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The black ribbon in Spain is the simplification of a black wreath which is used for mourning... There is nothing regarding terrorism with black colour. Where did you get that definition?

I have put this before the splitting part in order to have the discussion at the end. Sorry if this messes up thinkgs a little.Pfortuny 11:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my fault. I should have said I was talking in a figurative way. Rumpelstiltskin 22:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The splitting suggestion. Please read
I have already suggested confining this article to the actual events of the bombings, and moving everything else to Aftermath of the March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks. The article is far too big and still growing, although I agree with Jiang that some of the instant-news-service content could now be cut. Adam 09:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * On my side, I trust Adam more than myself for doing it... I am sure he will do a great job... This is a decline of responsibilities, but... In the end, you are the Historian and I am only a Mathematician... :/ Pfortuny 09:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I can do a fair job of arranging information within an article and sectioning, but summarizing an article and moving the details to separate articles is way harder. Go, Adam. Miguel 16:35, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

You're too kind, senor. I will do it if (a) there is a consensus that it should be done, (b) everyone else refrains from editing for a while, (c) I am not accused of being a fascist afterwards if I cut some superfluous content. Adam 09:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. -- Cantus 09:40, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No fun if I we can't call you names Adam! :( From my POV, go ahead Führer Carr. (har har I called you names!) --Maio 13:48, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to use msg:inuse, or I fear you'll get edit conflicts from people not reading this page. :) fabiform | talk 15:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"terrorist"/NPOV
Whil I have the greatest sympathies for the people of Spain, the victims of the attack in Madrid and their families, and while I consider these attacks to be acts of terrorism, I have removed the word "terrorist" and clarified or replaced it with "militant" in many places in this article. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter -- that doesn't justify the murder of civilians, of course, but we should be aware that there are multiple perspectives on events that may *seem* clear-cut to us. I have no desire to diminish these attacks or the weight of the wrong committed; I'm simply seeking to adhere to Wikipedia's established (and wise) NPOV policy. -- Seth Ilys 15:13, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really see the problem with calling this event a terrorist attack. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." --Vikingstad 16:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Vikingstad: I don't see a problem with calling it terrorism either -- personally. I think that they are terrorism. But at Wikipedia, we try to adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy which essentially says that when there are two sides two any issue, we present both cases without making a judgement as to which is right. There are clearly two sides here... that the Madrid attacks were "terrorism" and that they weren't. Thus we shouldn't label them as terrorism outright when some would contest that label. We *should* indicate that the prevalent view worldwide is that they are (and I think that the article does that very clearly), but calling them "terrorism" outright in Wikipedia clearly violates out NPOV policy. See NPOV for more information on this policy. -- Seth Ilys 16:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you can only fight for freedom if you are not free, which according to reality is not the case either in central Spain or the Basque country. I am sorry I am stating facts not opinion by using "terrorism". And please do not use weasel expressions like "widely regarded as"... they make WP poor. Pfortuny 16:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Moreover, just in case, you couldn't talk about death because for some believers, death is the starting of life, so you ought to use the expression death in this world everywhere. Please. Pfortuny 16:57, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Pfortuny: I'm not arguing that the ETA are freedom fighters. But: I live in the United States, where, in 1775, our colonial forces rose up against a legitimate government and overthrew British rule in acts which were characterized by some at the time as "terrorism" and "piracy," but which are now widely regarded as legitimiate and just. "Facts" change with time, like it or not. When writing in the article space, I try not to judge moral issues. There are multiple sides to just about every debate, and to be fair and complete, we should try to ensure that Wikipedia does not sides in politically loaded issues.


 * I'm not trying to justify the attacks in Madrid, or condone them, or sympathize with the murderers. I know it may be emotionally difficult for many to see the atrocity committed in on March 11 not called terrorism. But I'm simply trying to adhere to the NPOV policy, which is that when there's a dispute, we don't take sides. "Widely regarded as" is not intended to be a "weasel expression" but a statement of fact. -- Seth Ilys 17:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Come on, I know you are not trying to justify it. I am not trying to justify more than what common language today (and language is here and now) calls terrorism refers to these attacks. That's it. Pfortuny 17:08, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a fact that the territory they want is part of Spain and that they don't want it to be part of Spain. That makes them freedom fighters in their own eyes if it's ETA. Anti-colonialists or whatever if it's Al Queda. Just like the case where a group of traitors in North America decided to rebel against their lawful king and form a country now called the USA. US people have a somewhat different view of those events. It's why letting the acts speak for themselves is the way to go. Jamesday 17:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with Pfortuny on this. According to the accepted definition this was terrorism. Period. You can discuss whether terrorism is good or bad, or if it is needed to fight a more important case. But you can't dispute that is was terrorism. Another point here, is that the alleged Al Quaeda spokesperson says that "estos atentados son muy poco con lo que podrá ocurrir con lo que llamáis el terrorismo" (english "these attacks will seem very small compared to what can occur in what you call terrorism") . --Vikingstad 17:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of two terrorists by that definition. Both were non-government actors who ordered a bombing which killed military and civilians. I know where to find them and how to identify them. Would you like to capture them? Would you like to apply the US policy of terrorist forever to them? They are identified here . That act was carried out agains the armed forces of my country, acting on a peacekeeping mission blessed by international accords. Whether someone is a terrorist or freedom fighter depends on who is writing the history. Good luck with trying to get either individual described as even a former terrorist in our articles about them, even though the attack clearly falls within both definitions given here. If you want a senior terrorist leader who's still alive to capture and kill, here's one, featured on the front page of Wikipedia today. Jamesday 18:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thus Spake WordNet:
 * terrorism, n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Does this qualify as terrorism? Isn't there violence, against civilians, for political goals? -- your local Fennec 17:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * By this very definition, the US and UK against Iraq, and almost every other country has engaged in terrorist activities. I see no problem condeming the violence against civilians in Madrid as terrorism, it's just that I would like some balance. If we only call one side by an adjective it deserves, that hardly qualifies as neutral in my books. -- Daniel H.


 * Not quite, notice that the definition states against civilians. AFAIK, the invasion of Iraq wasn't against civilians, although obviously, civilians have died as casualties of war. --Maio 15:12, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Dictionary definitions are all well and good, but the fact is that people will contest that 11-M was a terrorist attack, just like it has been contested that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. We should present *undisputed* facts, not characterizations. -- Seth Ilys


 * OK, I give up editing this article: my peace of mind comes first. Call it bananas, as we mathematicians say, it is surely npov as it is a noun not an adjective. I hope Miguel does not despair from editing. Pfortuny 17:35, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * In the end, I don't think anyone will question it being terrorism. But for the time being, that might be possible. Meanwhile, I hold it for reasonable, that Wikipedia make a moderate use of the term in this article.
 * --Ruhrjung 17:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just call the attacks "attacks" without qualifications. In spain we call ETA "an armed group", we don't even bother saying terrorism any more. In fact, enough people within Spain, including the majority of Basque natinalists, think that they are just thugs with no real political agenda any more other than their own continued existence. We can call the islamic groups allegedly involved in this "militant". This discussion is a lot of heat, little light, and a waste of valuable time that could be spend adding content to the encyclopedia. Miguel 17:39, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

Questions: Has anyone defended the Madrid bombings or suggested that they were anything other than terrorism? Other than, presumably, al-Qaida itself? Does any terrorist ever do anything other than pretend that their terrorist acts are not terrorist acts? If the answer to these questions is "No", in what circumstances can Wikipedia ever use the word terrorist? Answer: Never. This being so, Wikipedia's policy should say that and save us all a lot or arguing. Adam 23:35, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's getting a little annoying people are repeatedly removing the word 'terrorist' as if it were taboo or unencyclopedic [sic]. The word exists, let's use it. --Cantus 00:39, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia's de facto policy is that words like terrorist and dictator can never be used because there will always be someone, somewhere who disputes them in any given case and they are therefore POV. Adam 00:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * A morally bankrupt if not just plain wrong policy IMHO. PMA 01:18, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * To a certain extent, all political correctness borders on the morally bankrupt. The problem with words such as terrorism, dictator, fascist and genocide among others is that they are losing their meaning through over-use. With this understanding, we should attempt to find more descriptive and uncontroversial ways to describe things in Wikipedia articles. There is nothing wrong with producing scholarly writings in the social sciences which contain value judgements or value loaded terms, but Wikipedia cannot do that and should just present fact avoiding value judgements. Miguel 01:24, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it creates obscenities like calling the Madrid bombers or ETA "militants" when they are in fact terrorists. Euphemising evil is not acceptable, even in encyclopaedias, which cannot divorce themselves from the moral universe of the culture which produces them. Adam 02:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the current event message. Everyone knows this is a current event. It adds nothing to the article except to say "Don't trust this article" and is there for the benefit of writers, not our readers. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article division
I am now going to embark on dividing the article in two, as discussed above. Please be patient. Adam 09:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)