Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 2

Note: Article has been divided in two
I have now divided the article in two, as discussed earlier, and done a copyedit which has involved some cutting. Adam 11:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks (very much) to Adam. Great job. Pfortuny 12:39, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Very nice. Well done, Adam. -- ChrisO 00:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article title
Couldn't the title be more specific, like March 11, 2004 Madrid train attacks or March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings? -- Dissident 18:53, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as I know, it is as much specific as it can, there were no more attacks then and there. Pfortuny 20:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Madrid attacks" sound like they were a bunch of attacks against Madrid. "Madrid train bombings" is direct to the point.   &mdash;Michael | Talk 05:29, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm with Pfortuny here (and with most I hope) -- no other attacks of that scale occurred that day in Madrid, so I think it is pretty specific. And remember the 9/11 page is titled September 11, 2001 attacks. Now that doesn't even specify where it occurred! And before you bring the "you were living under a rock if you didn't know where it occurred" argument, I could say the same applies to the Madrid bombings... Even bin Laden who *is* living under a rock knew of the attacks ;) --Cantus 05:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This peculiar wording arises from the fact that we are not allowed to use the word "terrorist" at Wikipedia, so we have to say "attacks" without saying whether they were attacks of measles or some other kind of attacks. I certainly agree that "Madrid train bombings" would be a much more honest and informative title. Adam 06:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * And what if there is another train bombing in Madrid in the future? Using the date, plus the city is about all you need. --Cantus 06:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I had not contemplated this (I mean Adam's) point of view (especially the measles :). Seriously, I have changed my mind and I vote for March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings. Pfortuny 07:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * There is really no need to get so specific in the title. You don't need to know it 'all' in the title. Encyclopedia Britannica (the be-all end-all, right?) titles the 9/11 attacks as September 11 attacks in their 2004 edition. --Cantus 08:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If the EB was the be-all and end all (BAAEA) I don't think any of us wd be here. Adam 08:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * We're here because EB isn't free (in both main senses of the word.) --Cantus 08:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * [Off-topic] There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which are better than the equivalent article in the 15th edition of the paper EB (the one I have). The balance is only likely to tip further. Thus it isn't just about freeness any more. However I agree, there is no need to get too specific in the title. The extra words could be viewed as an unnecessary disambiguation. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, why don't name it to the name given in english media? That was the aim when the article was borned at first, although at that time doubly no victims was reported, only blasts. BBC seems to use "Madrid bombings" &mdash; f.e. in swedish "Terrordåden i Madrid" is used, in hispanic "11 M" is used, etc. // Rogper 15:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anyone reading the English-language world media can see that the event is becoming known as "the Madrid train bombings," not M11 or 11M or 3/11 or the Madrid attacks. The article ought to be moved to Madrid train bombings of 11 March, 2004. Adam 12:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think that's an unnecessary and overly-long disambiguation - would you call 9/11 the "Plane crashes of 11 September, 2003"? Also, it's not the most commonly used term. Google returns 79,100 results for "Madrid attacks" as opposed to 27,900 for "Madrid train bombings" . I've added a redirect for "Madrid train bombings", btw. -- ChrisO 13:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * You first point is fatuous as I'm sure you know - no-one calls 9/11 the "Plane crashes of 11 September, 2003" (or even 2001). You second point has validity. There is no single established term as yet. But I think "Madrid train bombings" will eventually become established because it is more specific than "attacks." The reason Wikipedia uses "attacks" is because it's a euphemism for "terrorist attacks," which the Wikipedia Friends of Terrorism won't let us call them. "Madrid train bombings" is a much more honest title. Adam 13:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't mind whether or not "terrorist" appears in the title and my only substantive criticism of your wording is that it's too unwieldy. The more important issue is one of timing. "Madrid attacks" is clearly the most popular usage at the moment, by a near 3:1 ratio, but I agree that this could change over time. The problem is that there hasn't yet been enough time for such a change in usage. I just don't think it's necessary to change the name at this stage, given that it's only been eight days since the attacks. Could we not agree to look again at the matter in a few weeks' or months' time, when the usage has become more settled? The current name is causing no harm and does, after all, reflect the prevalent usage. -- ChrisO 13:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure. Actually my suggestion is only unwieldy because it has the date attached, which it doesn't need. Madrid train bombings would be perfectly clear and unambiguous on its own. But I agree there is as yet no consensus on a title for the event. Adam 13:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think there does need to be some specificity regarding the date. Cantus is absolutely right to ask "what if there is another train bombing in Madrid in the future?" So I'm afraid we're probably lumbered with having to include a date in the title. -- ChrisO 14:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Now that's a really fatuous argument. Do we say Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941, on the grounds that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbour again? Adam 14:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Not at all! :-) Pearl Harbor isn't a valid comparison. Don't forget that ETA has already carried out train bombings and was widely reported before March 11th to be attempting more. There's no guarantee that it won't happen again in Madrid, although I agree that it would be very foolish of ETA to try it in the present climate. Given that, it would be prudent to have a specific title to allow for the possibility of a recurrence. You've already endorsed this approach by including a specific date in your proposed name. -- ChrisO 14:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If the date is retained, it should be given in European format, 11 March, not March 11 - MPF 02:37, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The attack may well become known simply as "March 11", with or without the year. This is especially likely in Europe, and almost certain in Spain, where the format 11-M is wery common to refer to major events. Miguel 14:42, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

AKAs: M-11
I haven't seen M-11 used anywhere as an aka to the Madrid attacks. 11-M was coined by the Spanish press and is widely used in the Hispanic world. 3/11, is more rarely used, but still valid. I propose removing the M-11 aka. --Cantus 23:14, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I saw 3/11 in an American news commentary this morning. I haven't seen M11 or 11M and I don't think they are becoming established (in English) as 9/11 has done. Adam 01:55, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article is among most read on Wikipedia this month
The March usage stats for English Wikipedia are showing that this article is the third most frequently accessed English-language page so far this month, excluding meta and special pages and the home page. It is also the most frequently accessed new article, with 15,360 hits so far. United States and World War II come first and second. 

Interestingly, although this article's Spanish equivalent also appears in the Spanish Wikipedia top 25, it's only the ninth most frequently accessed Spanish-language page. -- ChrisO 21:51, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason for this might be that Spanish speakers have ready access to primary sources, while the English article has been one of the fastest ways to summarize and translate those primary sources into English. The English article is also Google's top (I'm feeling lucky) hit for "Madrid March 11", but the Spanish article is among the top 130 hits for "Madrid 11 Marzo" &mdash; Miguel 21:59, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

Usage figures
Comparative figures from Google // Updated by Cantus 00:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC):

It's interesting to see how these figures are changing - they've changed again since Cantus edited them just a short time ago, with the figures for "Madrid bombings" going down by 9,000. Presumably an artifact of the Google spider? -- ChrisO 23:55, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Redirects
Here are the current pages that redirect to this article. I'm listing them here so that they are indexed by Google (and perhaps a search for these titles will turn up this page first). --Minesweeper 10:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Date formatting
Seems like some like to change this into 11 March, instead of March 11, which is the english wikipedia date format. I believe it is correct now though... --Vikingstad 21:49, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to correct you, either 11 March or March 11 is acceptable format - see Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers). There was a long argument last summer about using European or American format dates before the compromise was agreed and which format of wikified date is displayed was made a user preference. -- Arwel 22:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you for clearing up. I didn't know dates were automatically converted to the user's preferred format. :) --Vikingstad 22:20, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Only linked dates like 11 March are automatically converted to user preference - dates in ordinary text like 11 March, and dates included within longer page titles, like 11 March, 2004 Madrid attacks are not. Since this is a European article, it should preferably follow the European date/month format - MPF 00:39, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It'd look even better without the comma: 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks. –Hajor 00:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right - wish I'd thought of that! Please do move it to that if you wish (I don't have time to re-do it all just now!) - MPF 00:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Done! Moved to 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks. Thanks to user Timwi! --Cantus 05:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Victims
How about a separate page that just lists the victims? I'd rather not have 109 new articles that just say X was a victim of the Madrid attacks. - Texture 18:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * See also Votes for deletion on this subject. Rmhermen 18:29, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a separate list. If there is consensus to have the list here, at the VERY LEAST the list needs to be complete, with the proper accents in the right places, and the list needs to be in alphabetical order. Moncrief 21:23, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Page Protection
This page is now temporarily protected due to the edit war re: listing victims. Please discuss the issue on this talk page and come to a compromise. moink 21:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think a prominent link to the excellent Cadenaser list of fatalities would be more than enough, but I'd have no argument with a properly formatted list of names on List of victims of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks -- given names before surnames, with all the necessary diacriticals, maybe age and nationality, too. Loaded with tragedy though each one of those names is, a badly presented subset of them does not belong in the main article. –Hajor 21:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * We should make a 'List of' and link to it from the article, and the list should be complete. I don't think any of the links outside wikipedia are good enough to be linked, they are all in spanish, and thus make no sense to have on the english Wikipedia. &mdash; Sverdrup 21:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was the one to add a list here in an effort to remove the individual articles. I agree with those above that this is too large to include in the article and should be created as a separate list. A list outside Wikipedia is just as good if one can be found in english. - Texture 21:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A separate list article is the right thing to do. We can also use the external link to the list published by El Pais as an initial source for victim entries. Miguel 22:24, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)


 * OK. Re the title, I note the 9/11 pages are located at Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: XX: "casualties" is, I think, better than "victims", and inclusive enough to cover both the slain and the wounded. Can we have our page back now? User:Awe! would appear to have withdrawn from the discussion. –Hajor 22:33, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We got the page back. Where should the link go? - Texture 22:35, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I unprotected it. I'm still watching to see if this gets bad again, though. moink 22:36, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Move page
Based on evidence above, see Usage figures, I believe the name of this article should be changed (yet again) to 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings, to reflect more accurately on how people the majority of 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 22:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to the usage figures? The ones I see for March for Wikipedia don't even show Madrid as a search entry. - Texture 22:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about Google search results, see Usage Figures topic above in this page. --Cantus 23:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget to vote at Talk:Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks on the same issue. This will also decide the name of Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks or Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings


 * Oppose:
 * Texture 22:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) - Recommend "bombings" as a redirect
 * "Bombings" is not a strong enough word for this event. It would be like titling the 9/11 article "Hijackings" or "Intentional plane crashes of September 11, 2001." Moncrief 22:55, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support:


 * Discussion:
 * Spain sees this as their 9/11. Doesn't "bombings" reduce it in caliber?  Israel and Iraq have "bombings".  This was a concerted attack. - Texture 22:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * How about making that link a redirect? Both are correct. - Texture 22:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I could have done that ;) My point is to gather support to change the *name* of the article. --Cantus 22:46, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * :) Me too. Although, I am gathering support for a redirect as an alternative.  If everyone got bored and left, do you want to flip for it? - Texture 22:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Creating a redirect is dangerous, because then to change the article back to that redirection page you have to ask an admin (Well, if that page is subsequently edited). --Cantus 22:50, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * (Thanks for the smiley edit) As for changing it back, I am waiting for a decision before creating it as a redirect and as an admin I can help out if any need arises for redistribution. Texture 22:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

911 days
There seems to be endless confusion about whether this was, in fact, 911 days after Sept 11, 2001. Discussion on the current events page, and the current text at 900 (number), conclude that the calculation is correct if you count it as the number of days between the two dates - i.e. there are 911 days from Sept. 11, 2001 to Mar. 11, 2004 exclusive. I'm too tired to doublecheck this myself right now, so I'll leave it to someone else rather than fiddling with the article. - IMSoP 22:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This was discussed two weeks ago, and the conclusion was that it didn't merit a mention in the article, plus it wasn't a likely Islamic terrorist patron anyway. --Cantus 22:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK; I didn't mean to repeat old discussion. Although, your answer doesn't quite fit with the current state of the article, since the "Responsibility" section still mentions that "It has been widely reported that...", but then implies that such reports are false, which is misleading. But maybe this was re-added later and should be removed or rewritten or something. - IMSoP 23:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I thought that bit was gone, lol. --Cantus 23:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Dumb question: Does this really matter? This does seem to be yet another wasteful exercise in numerology. Arno 10:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-

Translation sought
Does anyone know of an English translation of King Juan Carlos's speech to the nation on March 11? I cannot seem to be able to find one. Arno 10:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * BBC -- Arwel 12:04, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Arwel. I even looked there but I missed it. Arno 07:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-

Police raid
Just saw this on the news.... it appears to have some relevance to this article:


 * One policeman and three suspected militants have been killed in an explosion in a suburb of the Spanish capital, Madrid.
 * The blast was set off by the suspects as police closed in on an apartment in the south-western area of Leganes, Interior Minister Angel Acebes said.
 * Eleven police officers were hurt in the blast, some seriously.
 * Police said they had been looking for three men of Moroccan origin in connection with the Madrid train bombs. cont...

fabiform | talk 22:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This is relevant to the Aftermath article. But since it is a developing story, I'd suggest to wait before any inclusion is made. --Cantus 22:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Emphasis of the article
Well I just reread the article (and tweaked it in one or two places, nothing major). I got the feeling that the article places too much emphasis on ETA. Now I realise that initially they were the main suspects, and that the fact the Spanish government went out of its way to say that ETA were to blame needs to stay in the article, but perhaps references to them should be trimmed in other sections.

The introduction looks perfectly balanced to me. In ==The attacks== ETA is mentioned twice, in the paragraph about booby traps, saying that it followed their MO, and in the next paragraph about the type of explosives used. I would suggest moving the first mention of ETA and booby traps to the section which explicitly deals with the analysis of ETA's normal tactics. As an aside, should "The police are investigating reports of three people in ski masks" now be in the past tense? ("The police investigated reports...")


 * Problem: there were no actual booby traps. Those were in the initial reports because, intentionally or unintentionally, reports interpreted facts in the way most likely to place the blame on ETA. I fell for that myself. The unexploded devices were all in backpacks on the trains, and failed to explode presumably because the timers were set 12 hours late. When they were found, they were reported to be in parked cars and timed to explode on rescue workers. Miguel 00:06, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

The responsibility section begins with "Although ETA has a history of mounting bomb attacks in Madrid...." which implies the reader thinks ETA was behind the attack. Now that it seems so unlikely to be ETA, I think this whole section should be reworked to place a higher emphasis on a fundamentalist Islamic group. In fact, this should start by restating what was said in the introduction, i.e. that we cannot yet say for sure who did this. Then say that arrests have centered on people linked to Islamic fundamentalist groups. After this the article could jump back to ETA and work through all the initial suspicions and misinformations, and the denials by ETA. Followed by a detailed analysis of the al-Qaida theory. At the moment the section "ETA suspicions" is twice as long as "Al-Qaida suspicions".

Is the subsection "Precedent" named correctly? It descibes plans which in hindsight seem to relate to Spain (rather than Iraq), not prior attacks. How about "Al-Qaida intelligence", or something like that?

I do think this is an excellent article by the way, I just want it to be as good as possible. Any comments? fabiform | talk 21:00, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I also think that the text underneath the heading entitled ==Spanish muslim== should be merged with the text relating to the ==National== heading. User:ChicXulub 22:51, 5 Apr 2004  (GMT)

removed pov
I removed the following lines:

''Politically, it is one of the most successful attacks in recent history. Following the attacks, the ruling party was quickly removed and the new government complied with the attackers demands and withdrew troops from Iraq.''

There is no way to establish this. Furthermore, it makes more sense the other way around: in Spain, as in many other countries whose governments followed the USA into Iraq, people were very opposed to this policy and the socialists had already stated that they would withdraw spanish troops from Iraq if they came to power, which gave them strong support. So there's no way of telling if the bombing had any effect on the votes of the people. But it certainly didn't affect the policy of the new government. At least that's how I understood the newsreports on the subject. Maybe the writer of this is from the USA and therefor doesn't have access to objective newssources? Sorry, I couldn't resist placing that remark :). DirkvdM 19:45, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

can this pov be removed?
Who Misled Whom? I have a problem with an editorial this entry. It doesn't really add much information on the bombings and is basically contains personal opinions of the events (in other words the article lacks sources). --Ruairimccomb 01:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that "Who Misled Whom?" should be removed. I live in Spain, and lived through the bomb attack and elections. The article is very clearly a viewpoint in support of Aznar and the Partido Popular. The idea that the socialist party tried to create the perception that the Partido Popular was deciving the public by blaming ETA is ridiculous - the PP itself did an amazing number of things to blame ETA in the days following the attack and there is clear evidence of this. There is very little evidence supporting the views held in this article. JamesJohnson 29 June 2005 12:26 (UTC)


 * It was a straight cut-and-paste from a Cato Institute column, so I deleted it as a presumed copyvio. It could be ext-lk'd, I suppose... –Hajor 29 June 2005 13:10 (UTC)

I'm spanish too and i have to say you're a lier. PP was lied by the policemen. It was a great Coup d'Etat the 11-M. Congratulations to all socialists, you're friend of murderers.

Videotape claiming al-Qaeda responsibility
I think this should be mentioned in the article.

According to the BBC, al-Qaeda claimed responsibility in a videotape found following an anonymous tip-off to a Madrid television station:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509426.stm

An Associated Press transcript of the message is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509556.stm

Matthewbrown 7 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

Still far too much emphasis on ETA
I believe there is still far too much emphasis on ETA in this article. There is very little evidence that ETA had anything to do with it, and they also deny any responsibility. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, have claimed responsibility and all the evidence points to them. Of course this issue in complicated by the fact that the Partido Popular, who were in power at the time, blamed ETA and lost the elections because of it. However, this is an encyclopia and politics should not be allowed to influence the articles. I don't think there is anyone (outside of hardcore supporters of the PP) that believe that ETA did this, neither in Spain nor internationally. JamesJohnson 7 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

Cite your sources!!!
From the "al-Qaeda Suspicions" section: "In addition, bin Laden had spoken earlier of wishing to return the southern Spanish region of Andalucia to Muslim control, reversing the Reconquista of 1492."

Where and when did he say that!? I'm writing a paper on this right now and if I could find either a transcript of whenever he made reference to this or a news article or some sort of journal article mentioning this it would make my day!

As for right now I'm making this comparison that Islamic terrorism occuring in Spain is a reflection of Spain's history with Morocco and the rest of the Islamic world. But this direct reference by a head of an Islamic terrorist organization would be an absolute gem. Honestly, I'm skeptical that Bin Laden even mentioned this and that someone simple stuck this in and kind of stretched his statement that "France, and...blah blah blah, and Spain or any other nations supporting the U.S. are open targest for suicide bombings".

--Zach

"In addition, bin Laden had spoken earlier of wishing to return the southern Spanish region of Andalucia to Muslim control, reversing the Reconquista of 1492." ---> This is true

"As for right now I'm making this comparison that Islamic terrorism occuring in Spain is a reflection of Spain's history with Morocco and the rest of the Islamic world".---> This is a great mistake Mabuimo 01:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)mabuimo

New info
I want to prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/110306Madrid.htm add this] somewhere, but ill ask for some help with that. Try reading the article here and following the links. --Striver 00:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Major edit
I am embarking on a major edit to this article. Much if it seems to be rooted in the mystery in the days immediately after the attack when ETA was still to blame, and there is some seriously wrong information about the March 12 demonstrations (I was there, so I remember quite well what happened.)

If people would like to support my additions with citations please do - everything I am adding is from personal recollection. I presume my own diaries don't count as citations!

I shall translate some information from the Spanish page at a later date. Damiancorrigan 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Politics, Social changes
I think that in the article there would be more about the government party change after the attack.

I live in Spain and I could swear that 3/11 changed a lot of thing including the government. It's a fact the People's Party government manipulated media during amnd after the attacks. I hope everyone agree with me at that point. And now, speaking from a more personally view I think that José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is leading Spain now because of the attacks.

Before them everyone, the media, the previtions... Everithing said that we were going to have again People's Party in the government. And then with the attacks Socialist Party win. I feel like terrorist wanted to change the government attacking as a vengance of Irak war and that they made it: change of government, President Zapatero withdrawing troops out of Irak before the date he promised...


 * It's not so easy. PP was losing many positions in the pre-electoral surveys since (at least) a week before the bombings. The reasons were many: an non charismatic candidate, Rajoy, that voters considered a puppet of Aznar; great manipulation in National Media -Urdaci, director of TVE News even was condemned by EU for his information about a general strike-; introduction of unpopular laws in Teaching centers; a suspicious maneuver after the elections for regional goverment in Madrid, that led to today unpopular goverment of the region by the PP when, actually, it had less votes than PSOE-IU coalition; unstoppable ascent of prices after the adoption of the Euro as national money and heavy building speculation -there where even illogical layout in the AVE train in Guadalajara that passed exactly on some lands of certain politics of the Popular Party that exactly they have increased their value after being built-; constant samples of contempt about Political Opposition, some regional goverments (mainly Catalonia, also Basque Country), unions of workers (there were several general strikes during the 2nd goverment of Aznar) and even the own citizens, that were called pancarteros ("placard carriers") when they demonstrates against the bad coordination of oil slick of 2003 in Galicia and, mainly, against the unpupolar Spanish participation on the War of Irak. Many citizens support the invasion of Afghanistan because it was a decision of UN and talibans were in fact allies of 11-9 terrorists of Al-Qaeda, but the accusations against Irak always were seen as ridiculous lies (althoug the big campaign of Aznar and his party in TV supporting him). When the Congress voted for the participation of Spain in the war, only PP voted "Yes" but it winned because they had simple majority at the time; following the victory in votation, PP parliaments performs a lamentable spectacle of laughs and shouts. By the way, Aznar broke the traditional role of Spain in the European Union and started a politic of confrontation against several Latin American countries, France and Morocco. As a result, there were most demonstrations against Spain in Latin America and Morocco since the times of decolonization. Aznar was always seen as a debil character ("a pet" according to some humor writers) when he appeared in TV with Bush or Blair. All Spaniards remember his "amazing" speech with a Texan accent in Bush ranch; the time when Foreign Minister Josep Piqué received Bush in an airport and almost he brokes his neck doing reverences; the absolute incompetence of Piqué' successor, Ana de Palacio and her affairs with Colin Powell; and the weak (or null) response to British nuclear submarine Tireless in Gibraltar. Moreover, when a Spanish reporter was killed in Irak by American forces in the Palestine Hotel, Aznar government didn't asked for a true investigation, and didn't adopt a better politic of security against Islamic terrorism when 9 Spanish militars where killed by terrorists in Irak or when there where a bombing in a Spanish restaurant on Casablanca. Finally, when occurs the worst terrorist attack in Spain, the 3-11, manipulation increases and even the Minister of Security, Ángel Acebes calls "Misserables" to all Spaniards that doubt of ETA authority, and Mariano Rajoy wound the Jornada de Reflexión making a political speech on Radio. In my opinion, even without terrorist attacks, PP would be lost the general elections. The attacks, and the following goverment manipulation, perhaps reduced some votes but didn't change the whole result. It's more probable that a 3-14 without 3-11 wolud be ended like last elections in Italy, with a minor but whole victory of Left parties and a defeat of the Right. But, by the way, also remember that Berlusconi is less hated in Italy than Aznar and his crew was at that time in Spain. PSOE didn't win... PP, and mainly Aznar, lost. This was the true result of 3-14-2004.--Menah the Great 01:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

POV
Wow! I read this article for the first time today, and I must say I almost was convinced the ETA did it after all. Seriously, if one reads through this article quickly, that's the impression you get. There is also a serious POV problem in the 'electoral consequences'. I see that these problems have been discussed before, without any effect, so let's do it the hard way. 1652186 19:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph I have included is true, perfectly valid and taken directly from es Wikipedia. More sources can be provided if needed.--Burgas00 22:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it implies ETA did it. Telling the story chronologically, ETA has to feature highly as they were being blamed by Aznar at the time.Damiancorrigan 12:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
I am missing some mention of the conspiracy theories that have been pushed in the last two years by some journalists close to the PP and sometimes by the PP itself.

Well you skipped them. I included them a few days ago. They are at the top of the article. User 83.97.192.10 is trying to erase them though.--Burgas00 10:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have copypasted this from the article on Spanish wiki. It should be translated and included.

'''Algunos de los grupos mediáticos, partidos y personas individuales que sostuvieron la hipótesis de ETA han continuado en su empeño desde entonces hasta ahora. En un lenguaje cada vez más oscuro y evocador, estas fuentes llaman la atención sobre detalles que les parecen inexplicables y exigen que se sepa una supuesta verdad oculta. Con la investigación policial y judicial completa, quedan pocos cabos sueltos por lo que últimamente el empeño se centra directamente en acusar a la policía de falsificar pruebas. El trabajo se realiza a dos niveles. Por un lado, periodistas poco conocidos lanzan acusaciones gravísimas como que la mochila que no explotó era una fabricación destinada a inculpar a los actuales acusados. Los dirigentes del PP o columnistas con prestigio, aluden por su parte a estas supuestas revelaciones periodisticas sin entrar en el fondo de la cuestión y alegando que solo quieren que "se investigue". De esta forma se consigue la máxima repercusión en la prensa sin que las personas que tienen una posición o un prestigio lo arriesguen.'''

'''Hay que distinguir claramente entre los que consideran que el PSOE no actúo con lealtad porque disponía de información (o bien desde Francia o bien a través de antiguas amistades en la policía) que utilizaba para dejar en ridiculo al ministro, y los que insinúan que el PSOE prácticamente organizó los atentados. En el primer grupo encontramos por ejemplo al periódico ABC mientras en el segundo se encuentran la cadena radiofónica COPE y los diarios El Mundo y La Razón. También hay fuertes divergencias entre los que sostienen estas teorías sobre los motivos del ministro y sobre hasta qué punto le asistía la razón o estaba siendo engañado.'''

Ok, you didn't got the point. The problem is not the sources, the problem is your extremely subjective point of view. Look at the way I changed your words to say the same in an ironical point of view. Now, could you edit it to make it more neutral? For example, the media links don't need a warning (we do think for ourselves), you can say they discuss some facts of the official investigation (I think 'Agujeros Negros' discusses about facts not theories).

I repeat this is not my view. I have only translated from the corresponding article in Spanish wikipedia.

If you speak Spanish, please read this: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teor%C3%ADas_de_la_conspiraci%C3%B3n_del_11M

--Burgas00 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Over the last three years, conservative forces in Spain have overtly argued the possibility that the Socialist party, the police, the Spanish, French, and Moroccan secret services, and, of course, ETA, may have had a role in organizing the bombings.

I am not "conservative", and I can tell you that the Official Version is full of crap.

We still do not know who was the real origin of the bombings.

Do not bother to translate te above spanish text. Is a flagrant POV written from the officialist POV. Randroide 12:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

11-M Dissidents ("conspirationists")
To gain some background about the realities of 11-March Madrid Bombings, see also False flag and Strategy of tension.

Some raw texts in english from 11-M Dissidents:

11 M known lies

In March 11th 2004, Spaniards suffered the bloodiest terrorist attack ever happened in our history.

We were told 11 lies about the terrorist attack.

1. We were told the perpetrators of the massacre were fanatic islamists enrolled in Al Qaeda, but the prosecuted turned out to be mainly just ordinary criminals, almost all of them being either security forces informers or controlled by them.

2. We were told the terrorists left a bag containing explosive in a Renault Kangoo van found in Alcalá, but the EOD dogs that inspected it did not find anything unusual.

3. We were told several items proving the implication of the terrorists in the massacre turned up in the van, but the Police saw none of those items when they first inspected the vehicle right in Alcalá.

4. We were told a bomb that did not explode was found almost 20 hours later in a police station, but several evidences lead to suspect that bomb was never in the trains. A mobile phone found inside the fake bomb allegedly pointed the police inquiries toward the then-arrested suspects.

5. We were told the bomb did not go off due to a mistake made by the terrorists, but evidences lead to suspect the device was deliberately designed so as not to explode and therefore constituting a forged incriminating evidence.

6. We were told the terrorists left a Skoda car in Alcalá the very same day of the attack. It was found 3 months later, but there are evidences that prove the car was not there on March 11th.

7. We were told the terrorists used the Skoda car to commit the attacks, but there is no evidence they were ever inside that car, but for some clothes and other items that were found inside the car in a certainly suspicious way.

8. We were told a group of islamists put the explosive backpacks in the trains, but, unlike New York or London, the security cameras did not get to record the image of any of them.

9. We were told a long and heavy shooting between the terrorists and the Police took place in Leganés, but after the explosion (as a result of which the terrorists and one policeman were killed), only 5 cartridges were found, and not a single bullet hole in the whereabouts.

10. We were told Leganés terrorists provoked the explosion in an attempt to carry out a typical terrorist suicide and therefore another massacre, but, after killing 192 in the trains, they were kind enough as to wait till all the neighbours left the building before blowing it up.

11. We were told the case was clear and solved, but day after day new information questioning the veracity of the official version is being published.

A shameless chain of lies A shameless chain of lies By Luis del Pino - Original published by ©Libertad Digital

The 11-M premilinary proceedings show that Juan J. Sánchez Manzano, the director of the TEDAX unit (Technicians in Explosive Deactivation) / (Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technicians), manipulated the analysis of the explosives carried out by the Scientific Police right after the attacks, in order to conceal the fact that the explosive found in the Alcalá de Henares van did not match the one found in the Vallecas backpack.

While the Vallecas backpack contained only pure Goma-2 ECO, the fragment of explosive from the Alcalá van contained also METHANAMINE, which is a compound found in some military type explosives, such as T-4 (cyclonite). The deceit was exposed by the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil, a Spanish police force with both military and civilian functions) one year after the massacre, but only now has it come to public notice.

The hush-up. There are many different types of dynamite, among these are Tytadyne or Goma-2. There are also several sub-types of Goma-2, such as the famous Goma-2 ECO. All of them differ in chemical composition. Goma-2 Eco in particular is made up of five compounds: nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, ammonic nitrate, ftalato of dibutilo and calcium carbonate.

As soon as the attacks occurred, the different police units started working to try to clear up what had happened. The Scientific Police took to the task of analysing the chemical composition of the explosives found. After the discovery of the ‘miracle backpack’ in Vallecas, they had three different samples to analyse and compare:

1. The rests of explosive from the Alcalá van. 2. The explosive found in the Vallecas backpack. 3. The Goma-2 ECO sample that the TEDAX unit presented as standard sample.

Before these analyses had been completed, Sánchez Manzano circulated a preliminary report, dated 12 March, in which he literally stated: ‘The results of the analyses, still unconcluded, confirm so far that it is [the Vallecas explosive] the same substance as the one found in the aforesaid Renault van, which in turn matches the standard sample of Goma-2 ECO dynamite’. That is, on March 12 the tests haven’t concluded but Sánchez Manzano already dares maintain that they are three identical Goma-2 ECO samples.

He must have been in a great hurry, because had he waited only a few hours, he would have known that the conclusions of the Scientific Police report, issued on the same day, did not exactly confirm what he had predicted.

The analyses indeed showed that the Vallecas backpack only contained Goma-2 ECO. However, both the Alcalá van and the standard sample contained METHANAMINE as well as the normal compounds of Goma-2 ECO.

This is of utmost importance, since:

1. In the first place, METHANAMINE is a compound not of Goma-2 ECO, but of some military type explosives (such as cyclonite, also called hexogen, RDX or T-4), which suggested that a mixture of explosives could have been used on 11-M. 2. In the second place, the tests showed differences between the Vallecas backpack and the Alcalá van explosives, which finally confirms the suspicions about the ‘miracle backpack’’s origin and the sequence of investigations its lucky finding led to. 3. In the third palce, the unexplainable presence of METHANAMINE in the Goma-2 ECO standard sample presented by the TEDAX, which suggests that they might have given in two fragments of the same explosive found in the van, instead of a genuine standard sample.

On March 12, the Scientific Police, in their report labelled 173-Q2-04, specifically state the difference between the three samples, pointing out that they are identical except for the METHANAMINE compound, which is not to be found in the Vallecas backpack explosive. These results were concealed from the people who two days later would have to vote in a crucial poll.

The manipulation. But they could not be concealed from the judge, and this is where the chain of manipulations begins. In the report sent to the judge by Sánchez Manzano on March 16, the director of the TEDAX states that the explosive in the van, the explosive in the Vallecas backpack and the Goma-2 ECO standard sample are identical, and he lists their compounds for the judge: nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, ammonic nitrate, ftalato of dibutilo, METHANAMINE and calcium carbonate. In other words, Sánchez Manzano of his own accord adds the METHANAMINE missing in the Vallecas explosive.

There is a double manipulation in Sánchez Manzano’s report: on the one hand he conceals from the judge the differences found between the samples by the Scientific Police, while on the other hand he leads judge Del Olmo to believe that METHANAMINE is a compound of Goma-2 ECO, thus dodging uneasy questions on likely military type explosives.

This double manipulation conveniently strengthened the official story before the judge and the public opinion. From that moment on, everyone would take for granted that the explosive used in the attacks was Goma-2 ECO. In fact, Sánchez Manzano’s following reports handed in to the judge only mention the name of this sub-type of dynamite, without slippery further explanations about the chemical composition of the samples found in the backpack or in the van.

Headlong rush. Sooner or later this manipulation was bound to be discovered, and so it was, although one year late. The first alarming signal was given in January 2005, when the judge was handed in a report by the Guardia Civil concerning some cartridges of dynamite collected in Asturias (North of Spain). The analysis of these cartridges of Goma-2 ECO showed the presence of the five normal compounds in this explosive. Naturally, METHANAMINE was nowhere to be seen.

To top it off, on March 21, 2005, judge Del Olmo received a report from the Headquarters of the Guardia Civil in Toledo, then in charge of the investigation of the failed attack against the AVE (high speed train). In this report the Guardia Civil cleverly requested that the police be asked whether any traces of METHANAMINE had been found in the Leganés explosives, which was a subtle way to call the judge’s attention to the key point of the deceit.

After examining the documents in his posession, judge Del Olmo spotted the contradictions and on April 5, 2005, requested a pertinent explanation from Sánchez Manzano.

Sánchez Manzano finds himself caught in the tremendous fraud woven around this issue and rushes headlong into yet another unlikely report. He admits having said that there was METHANAMINE in the Vallecas backpack when there was none, but explains this as a ‘transcript error’. A very handy transcript error indeed, for it so mislead judge Del Olmo that for one whole year he believed that all three samples were of the same type of explosive. Some positions and some issues cannot afford one single ‘transcript error’.

Further on, Sánchez Manzano acknowledges that METHANAMINE is not a compound of Goma-2 ECO (so why, then, did he in his first report on March 16, 2004, lead the judge to believe that Goma-2 ECO does contain it?). He must therefore offer an explanation to the fact that there actually was METHANAMINE in the Goma-2 ECO standard sample handed in for analysis. And what is Sánchez manzano’s explanation? That it is ‘an unmistakably contaminating substance external to and nonexistent in the original formula’. Peculiar, isn’t is? What Sánchez Manzano is telling us is that the Scientific Police accept for their analysis samples of explosives containing contaminating substances. Moreover, not just any substances, but ‘incidentally’ one that is a military type explosive compound. If this is so, it immediately follows that the result of those analysis is rubbish, since no one can guarantee that every other compound detected is not a ‘contaminating substance’ too!

But there’s more: asked by the judge whether METHANAMINE is relevant in the identification of the type of explosive, Sánchez Manzano acknowledges it is a compund used in the making of cyclonite, but rushes to add that ‘it is not an explosive substance itself and so it follows that it can never be relevant in the identification of explosive substances, and this is the reason why it has never been used, mentioned or considered in the reports issued by this Unit’ (sic). That is:

1. On the one hand, Sánchez Manzano audaciously claims that he has never ‘used, mentioned or considered’ METHANAMINE in his reports, since it is irrelevant. Well! Some nerve, when you consider he squeezed it in by means of a ‘transcript error’ to fool the judge into believing that all three samples were identical. 2. On the other hand, the director of the TEDAX is telling us that a substance found in the formula of some military type explosives is ‘not relevant’ to find out what the explosive was that blew up the trains. Bright. I gather he actually means he doesn’t care what compounds the analysis detected, since it had to be Goma-2 ECO anyway.

Conclusions. This series of reports raises two fundamental questions: since the presence of METHANAMINE in the Alcalá van explosive evinces that it could not be Goma-2 ECO, what type of explosive was it? And still more important: since METHANAMINE is not a compound of Goma-2 ECO, how could it be detected in the standard sample handed in by the TEDAX? Or is it perhaps that the sample did not come from a Goma-2 ECO cartridge? Is there another type of dynamite that does have METHANAMINE in its formula?

As regards the explosives in the trains and those found in scenes also related to the massacre, we shall try to sum up for the reader the present state of the investigation. Both in the trains and in the house in Morata de Tajuña, only generic compounds of dynamite were to be found after the analysis, thus we cannot definitely specify what kind of dynamite was the one used in the attacks (that is, there are no analytic results that can determine whether it was Goma-2, Tytadyne or some other type of dynamite that blew up the trains). In fact, as El Mundo newspaper recently published, there are in the trains two sources of explosion where no explosive compunds at all have been identified. As to the strange device found on the AVE railway line, it contained pure Goma-2 ECO (as did the Valecas backpack).

One thing is clear so far, and this is that the explosive in the Vallecas backpack did not match the one in the Alcalá van, which suggests that one of these two pieces of evidence was deceitful.

But something else is clear. Few aspects of the legal proceeding illustrate in such detail the deliberate attempts of manipulation judge Del Olmo has had to go through form the very first day, March 11, 2004. Manipulated reports, absurd arrests, groundlessly withheld information, hushed-up evidence, innocent people falsely charged with crime… but none so plain as the chain of lies pointed out in this article.

These are not Sánchez Manzano’s only lies. He lied in the Commision of Investigation when he said that the backpack bombs collected from the trains exploded accidentally as the TEDAX unit men tried to deactivate them. This is not true, they were eliminated by the TEDAX unit by controlled explosion, as stated in the committal proceedings conducted by judge Del Olmo, and in the declarations of policement who witnessed the events. Sánchez Manzano also lied in the subsequent reports sent to the judge on the Vallecas bomb, in which he hushed-up for four months that the reason it hadn’t exploded was simply that it had been set not to, as shown in the scanned image of the backpack, taken on March 12, where the wires that sould have been connected could be seen loose.

The readers will remember how on those crucial days from March 11 to march 14, 2004, the PP government was repeatedly accused of lying, on the basis of its trying to hide that the explosive used in the trains was Goma-2, an explosive ETA quit using long ago.

Well, it is true that from March 11 somebody manipulated and lied about the explosives, but the legal proceedings show it was not Home Secretary Acebes who did.

Original published by ©Libertad Digital


 * Terror victims call for a demonstration to demand the clearing up of the 11M bombings in Madrid. June 7th, 2006Doubts and suspicions are mounting up on the official version of the 11M terrorist attacks in Madrid. The Terrorism Victims’ Association (AVT) has called for a demonstration to demand the clearing up of many dark aspects of the official version of the facts that are daily being exposed, an official version that the AVT questions. The demonstration will be held on June 10th at 6 pm in “Plaza de Colón” (Columbus Square), Madrid, with the motto “We want to know the truth”. According to the AVT spokesmen, more than two years after the attacks, “many doubts and question marks still surround the investigation of the case”.This demonstration, which is expected to be massively supported, has received the endorsement of numerous social organisations among which internet user groups devoted to the detailed investigation of the facts of the massacre are prominent. These groups, which have shed light on the many pitfalls, inaccuracies and fabricated evidence which plague the official version of the bombings, will rally to the gathering bearing the black pawn symbol on a white field that identifies all who seek the triumph of truth, of the dignity of the citizenry and the memory of the victims. Its black colour symbolizes the mass of fault-finding anonymous citizens who have unselfishly taken action to uphold those ideals. Some associations of internet users have denounced the passivity, lack of interest, and fainthearted attitude, when not a deliberate concealment of information, practiced by most of the Spanish media in connection with the investigations undertaken by the public. Members of these groups have pointed out that “what in other countries would result in a serious political and institutional crisis, is silenced or disdained by most of the media in Spain, therefore showing an attitude that is in poor keeping indeed with their high responsibility to the public” Journalists wishing to receive press credentials to report on the demonstration can send an e-mail with their details to prensa@avt.org


 * Fondo Documental - Press Release


 * Subjet: 11M Citizen investigation on the greatest terrorist attack in Spain


 * ''1) In March 11 2004, Spain suffered the greatest terrorist attack ever happened in our history. 197 citizens died in a tragic way and over 1500 victims were marked forever.

''
 * 2) However, the date of the attack - 72 hours before the presidential elections - and other strange and suspicious coincidences, have driven THOUSANDS of citizens, from housewives to anonymous Security State civil servants, to investigate by themselves, in a world - wide unprecedented initiative.


 * ''3) Part of the judicial proceedings have been made public, being the main working tool of these voluntary citizens, who are analyzing its every single piece of information.

''
 * ''4)In a first reading by the journalist Luis del Pino, a series of ENIGMAS regarding the massacre were published.

''
 * The regular collaborators work in an organized way, putting forward their appreciations on the blog published by the leading Spanish digital communications media.: Libertad Digital, and by the pararell forum of Fondo Documental sobre el 11M. Several participants from the blog offer altruistically their point of view at any time, day or night. Thus, every aspect expressed in those forums, is analyzed from different points of view, allowing every single detail to undergo a close check. For example, if a witness provides information on a given building, there is always someone who knows the area and analyses the information.http://www.libertaddigital.com/ : 1.100.000 visits in April.http://www.fondodocumental.com/ : 500.000 visits in April. The dissemination of this contents is allowed through any mean. '

''The power of Internet: A new social behaviour.Over 1,500,000 Spaniards meet in a blogg and a forum in internet to find out the most important facts regarding the bombing attack in Madrid 11th March 2004.They are trying to clarify the truth regarding the big massacre during the terrorist attack on March 11th. The blogg and the forum are already being used by some newspapers, TV channels and radio stations to find information that is not available from the official version of facts.More than two years after the terrorist attacks, the more reliable sources of information are in internet and, more specifically, in a blogg and a forum. Both of them were started by telecommunications engineers, the first in a digital newspaper www.libertadidigital.es and the second in the web site www.fondodocumental.com. This blogg and this forum have been the meeting points for over a million and a half Spaniards looking for the truth regarding the biggest terrorist attack in Europe.Policemen, students, engineers, housewives, soldiers, lawyers, taxi drivers etc are participating in these forums. '''The result is a very well organized investigation project with thousands of participants. They have used the same documentation of the trial provided by the Police and the examining magistrate to the lawyers.Internet users have pointed out a lot of pitfalls, inaccurancies and fabricated evidence in the official version of the facts. Some Spanish newspapers, radio stations and TV channels are already using this information as a support in their own investigations.'

Randroide 12:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Right... and the Orquesta Mondragón was behind the attacks, together with Humberto Janeiro, Isabel Pantoja and Gil y Gil (who coordinated the mission from Venezuela)...

Dont make me laugh: Libertad Digital has 1 million visits in April? This, according to you means that 1 million users visit the site... It doesnt mean that certain internet users may visit the place up to 20 times a month...

This is all bull**** as most spaniards know perfectly well. Im not going to go into dispelling this pathetic misinformation which is nothing but half truths, speculation and outright lies. No one is interested in the garbage spewed by Spain's far right which has not yet accepted that Spain is now a democracy.

--Burgas00 14:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the supporter of the official "truth": Not a single argument. Only ad homimens and bad jokes (bad jokes over a pile of 191 corpses. Revolting). Randroide 14:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Leganés "Siege": Some pictures and Burgas00 vs. Randroide discussion)



 * 9. We were told a long and heavy shooting between the terrorists and the Police took place in Leganés, but after the explosion (as a result of which the terrorists and one policeman were killed), only 5 cartridges were found, and not a single bullet hole in the whereabouts.

Ohhh really???? What overwhelming evidence!!!! No bullet holes!!! It is quite clear now! ETA and the socialist party are behind the attacks.--Burgas00 14:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No. No ETA or PSOE implication is clear now.

What it is clear is that the official version is untenable. Randroide 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What "official source" says there were 5 hours of shooting??? I followed the whole thing on tv live and i dont remember 5 hours of shooting... They were surrounded for 5 hours and there was no exchange of gunfire except for some shots fired by the terrorists (in the air). So what is your "theory"? The terrorists were already dead (even though they were shouting out of the window) and the policemen (who hide evidence) decided to blow themselves up, killing one of their partners?

These supposed lies and incognitas are not such when you look into them properly. They are manipulations of the truth used by some irresponsible and unproffessional mediatic groups.--Burgas00 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What "official source" says there were 5 hours of shooting???I followed the whole thing on tv live and i dont remember 5 hours of shooting...

You didn´t pay attention while watching T.V., man.

The Police Report says: En esos momentos, el grupo de policías que se encontraban en la parte trasera del edificio, controlando las vías del patio interior, observan en varias ocasiones cómo los individuos que se encontraban encerrados en el inmueble 1º 2ª, levantaban las persianas con la mano y realizaban ráfagas de disparos hacia el exterior

"Ráfagas", i.e., shootings in full-automatic fire. With a Sterling submachine gun. With only 5 empty shells int eh debris after the explosion. That´s enough for 0.5. seconds of "Ráfaga"...for the whole day "shooting".


 * They were surrounded for 5 hours and there was no exchange of gunfire except for some shots fired by the terrorists (in the air).

Uhmmmm...suicidal terrorists who shoot in the air. What a strange concept. And, where are the bullets?. Randroide 15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well when a building explodes things tend to dissapear.<Plus I dont think the scientific police were looking precisely for shells when they examined the sight later on...

So whats your theory randroide? What do you think REALLY happened? Lets hear it... This is so pathetic. '''And dont talk to me about disrespecting the dead. The party you support was openly lying in our faces on the night of the attacks trying to use them to avoid losing the elections. How disgusting is that???''' You cant deny it we all saw it on national TV. The worst thing is that it is powerful mediatic groups who are trying to convince the public that the attacks were planned by an evil alliance between the national and local security forces, the secret services, the judiciary, the socialist party, ETA and god knows who else.

Fortunately (most) Spaniards are not complete morons and this message has not been taken seriously... Of course, the liars of the 11M are simply lying some more. It seems it is the only thing they know how to do...

--Burgas00 23:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Empty 9mm shells do NOT "dissapear". Shells must support enormous explosive and mechanical forces to work properly in a machine-gun.

2. The scientific police looks for EVERYTHING. They do not say: "Uh, an empty shell. We are not interested in such thing". A piece of chewed chewing gum can send a man to the death row, and the scientific police knows that.

3. Do not change the subject. If I demonstrate you that the official theory is untenable, I am NOT compelled to create an alternative theory. I am not talking with you about what happened, I am talking about the untenability of official theory.

4. I support no spanish party (ad hominem 1),
 * I did not buy the PP lies in the 11, 12, 13 and 14 of March -probably that is one of the reasons I am not buying the present PSOE government lies now- (ad hominem 2),
 * I am not "pathetic" (ad hominem 3)
 * I am not a "moron" (ad hominem 4).

Let me remind you that we are not talking about ME nor about YOU: We are talking about the official version about the March 2004 bombings in Spain.

My political and philosophical convictions (and yours), mi vices and virtues (and yours) are totally irrelevant regarding this subject.

5. Burgass00 wrote: You cant deny it we all saw it on national TV.

Oh, yes. We all saw "it" on national TV.

And, BTW. What was exactly "it", What we really saw?.


 * We saw the neighbours of Leganés being evacuated by the police.
 * We saw the evacuated neighbours declaring they HEARD shots being fired and "arabic" shoutings. They SAW no "terrorists".
 * We saw a lot of smoke in Leganés, prior to the explosion.
 * We saw the police preventing to the journalists to take pictures or videos of the "shooting".
 * We saw the Leganés flat exploding.

O.K. . And now. What we did NOT saw?.


 * We saw no LIVING "islamist" in the Leganés" flat. No picture, no video. Nothing, after 6 hours and 48 minutes of "siege" by the Police.

But, how convenient, what a "good luck", someone started to roll the video camera just BEFORE the explosion of the flat.

Randroide 07:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is so silly!
 * Of course people were videotaping the whole thing. There had been 6 hours of seige before of the explosion. It is only natural that neighbours are videotaping what is happening...
 * How do you expect to see living islamists who are locked in their safehouse wired with explosives. You want an interview or what? "So Mr terrorist, do you intend to blow yourself up if the police storm the appartment?"

In what way is the PSOE government lying now? I seem to remember that it was the PP government who whas in power on the 11M. If anyone conspired it was them, not the PSOE, who had no power over the security forces, the judiciary, the intelligence or anyone else.--Burgas00 09:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course people were videotaping the whole thing.

Really?. Then, could you please explain us why, after almost 7 hours of "siege", there is not a single image of a living terrorist in Leganés, while the Police report says that: "...observan en varias ocasiones cómo los individuos que se encontraban encerrados en el inmueble 1º 2ª, levantaban las persianas con la mano y realizaban ráfagas de disparos hacia el exterior''.


 * How do you expect to see living islamists who are locked in their safehouse wired with explosives.

Again, and again, and again. The Police Report:"...observan en varias ocasiones...[]...levantaban las persianas con la mano y realizaban ráfagas de disparos hacia el exterior"


 * In what way is the PSOE government lying now?

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero: "Deseo y puedo ofrecer una primera conclusión cierta y segura de todas las investigaciones realizadas: las responsabilidad única y exclusiva del atentado corresponde al terrorismo islamista".

That´s a shameless, pure, unqualified LIE.

Out of 40 persons prosecuted by the 11-M, 36 turned to be either security forces informers or controlled by them.


 * not the PSOE, who had no power over the security forces, the judiciary, the intelligence or anyone else.

In Spain there is not Separation of powers. Both Legislative an Judicial branches are mere emanations from the Executive, which is the only real power.

Or, as Alfonso Guerra said in the late 1980s: Montesquieu ha muerto ("Montesquieu is dead").

The Intelligence services and the Security forces were not investigated by José María Aznar after 1996, due to "raison d etat". That was one of the mayor faults of Aznar. What was the reason for a major cleanup?. They helped to create the death squad created by the PSOE known as GAL.

Some conspirationists go further than me: They say 11-M = GAL 2

Randroide 18:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever dude. If you are not an extreme right freak as you say you are not, I can conclude you watch too much Iker Jimenez on TV.--Burgas00 18:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00: I could remove your latest post, due to the fact that is nothing more than a personal attack. This is not the spanish Wikipedia, where a clique of supporters of the official version bullies those who want to know the truth and delete without explanation any contradicting fact.

But I am not going to do so. I want everybody to see who are you.

1. I am not "extreme right" (ad hominem 5). I am a follower of Ayn Rand. But, what´s the point?.

2. Maybe I can be regarded as a freak, but that´s irrelevant (ad hominem 6). One of the most freakish things I have made in my life was spending a pair of weekends reading the proceedings about the 11-M.

3. I do not loose my time watching to Iker Jiménez (ad hominem 7). (For the english reader: Iker Jiménez presents a TV program about Ghosts, UFOS and the like).

Burgas00: Reading your posts I am wondering if you know that Ad hominems are regarded as logical fallacies, i.e.,a bad thing.

In other words: You said nothing.Randroide 07:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do attack you. I attack you because I think you should show more respect for the largest political party in Spain and thus show some respect for the people of Spain, rather than to dirty our image on an English-language wikipedia which is read by people from all over the world.

I think you have forgotten, but those responsible for Gal are in prison. They were arrested when the PSOE was in power. So the judiciary is not independent from the government???? And comparing selectively assasinating terrorists during a brutal terror campaign with murdering nearly 200 innocent civilians on a train is downright stupid. ETA has never commited such an indiscriminate terrorist act, but according to you, the largest party of spain, (which has practically fathered democracy in our country and has always shown restraint and moderation towards its political enemies) did it.

Please stop giving a third world image of Spain on wikipedia which is purely the product of your imagination. The Psoe is not the Yakuza. Why dont you write a fiction-book or something? Im sure it would sell.

--Burgas00 10:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And one last thing. You are probably familiar with the theory according to which it was "the jews" who organized 9-11. And how few jews died on those attacks and how 2 or 3 "members of the mossadW were seen nearby apparently celebrating the attacks. Do you also think the New York attacks were a massive jewish conspiracy to change US foreign policy? There is as much (or even more) "evidence" to support that "theory" than what you are proposing. Maybe the jews were involved in the Madrid attacks! How about a coalition of terror including the PSOE-Morrocan and French secret services-Spanish secret services-Spanish police-Spanish secret services-Spanish judiciary-ETA-Islamic terrorists-the Mossad-the jewish community in Spain and (why not?) the Free masons- allied to get the PP out of power??? --Burgas00 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should show more respect for the largest political party in Spain

If the leader of such a party lies, he lies. And Zapatero lied, as I mentioned above. That is a fact. No "disrespect" is involved in pointing at facts.

And I think that YOU should show more respect for the intelligence of our readers, bringing here facts and arguments, not opinions and ad hominems.


 * I think you have forgotten, but those responsible for Gal are in prison.

You are wrong. Please check the newspapers. All of them, Barrionuevo, Amedo, Galindo, Vera, Planchuelo...are free, some of them after hours (yes hours, not even days) of jail. For instance.

And what about their boss, "Mister X", Felipe González?. He was never prosecuted.


 * ...And comparing selectively assasinating terrorists during a brutal terror campaign

The GAL killed terrorists and non-terrorist alike. The last victim, for instance, Juan Carlos García Goena, was a draft evader. The GAL performed, intentionally, automatic weapons shootings into crowded bars in the south of France.


 * but according to you, the largest party of spain, (which has practically fathered democracy in our country and has always shown restraint and moderation towards its political enemies) did it.


 * I am not saying "PSOE did it". Excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta. I am simply saying that the Official Version stinks.


 * Restraint and moderation?. The PSOE supported the 1934 Asturian Uprising (article in spanish), and members of the Juventudes Socialistas Unificadas killed José Calvo Sotelo in 1936. Seems also that yo have never heard Alfonso Guerra talking in a PSOE political meeting. I heard him, man. Not a iota of "moderation".


 * the largest party of spain, (which has practically fathered democracy in our country

You are talking about a different country. Not Spain. I suggest you to read Spanish transition to democracy. Spain's first democratically elected prime minister after the dictatorship of General Francisco Franco was Adolfo Suárez, former leader of the Movimiento Nacional.


 * Please stop giving a third world image of Spain on wikipedia which is purely the product of your imagination.

The five empty shells after 2 hours of shooting with Sterling machine guns is not a product of my imagination. It is what the Official Version says.

And First world countries also have False flag bombings: See Strategy of tension.


 * All the "the jews" who organized 9-11 ranting.

Non sequitur (logic) 1. A different logical fallacy. Are you really going to use ALL the fallacies?.

Randroide 11:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, Im not going to continue with this. When you give me any serious proof which puts the official version in doubt, I will believe you. Until then dont accuse the Prime minister of lying or his party of organizing mass murder. I would prefer you did not even insinuate it, as you have been doing up until now.

You have no proof that Felipe Gonzalez organized the GAL, that is why he has never been indited nor accused. As you know, but you decide to omit, those members of the GAL who spent little time in prison, were amnestied by the PP. This is very suspicious isnt it? The PP (or AP as it was then called) heir of the Francoist dictatorship and had strong influence in the security forces which has been instruments of political repression for 40 years. Maybe it was the PP which organised the GAL from the opposition through its contacts in the police!!! And once it had reached its objective of winning the elections, after exposing the whole affair, it pardoned all those involved and accused!!

This is not a logical fallacy it is a parody and simile of your own defective reasoning which accuses the PSOE.

--Burgas00 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, have you read this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumours_and_conspiracy_theories_about_the_July_2005_London_bombings

Looks like more solid evidence than anything you have presented


 * Look, Im not going to continue with this.

Of course you are not.


 * Until then dont accuse the Prime minister of lying or his party of organizing mass murder.

With all the solemnity I say:

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is a liar

I quoted one of his multiple lies (see above). Please tell me if you want more lies quoted. There are dozens and dozens of them.

I do not accuse his party of organizing mass murder.


 * You have no proof that Felipe Gonzalez organized the GAL, that is why he has never been indited nor accused.

In 1995, Ricardo García Damborenea, local PSOE chief in Biscay during the 1980s, confessed openly in a press conference that Felipe González knew everything about the GAL from the start.

He was not indicted because, as I said, there is not Judiciary independent power in Sapin. "Montesquieu ha muerto".


 * As you know, but you decide to omit, those members of the GAL who spent little time in prison, were amnestied by the PP. This is very suspicious isnt it?

I agree totally with you in this point. That was one of the gravest faults made by the PP (the other one was the spanish participation in foreign military adventures). I am not a PP supporter.


 * The PP (or AP as it was then called) heir of the Francoist dictatorship and had strong influence in the security forces...

Non Sequitur 2.


 * Rumours_and_conspiracy_theories_about_the_July_2005_London_bombings

Non Sequitur 3.

I ask you some simple questions:

1. Why we have not a simple image of the terrorists alive in the Leganés flat after almost 7 hours of "siege"?.


 * Because there arent any. So what? They were inside the building and considering what had happened in Madrid, I dont think journalists and neighbours were feeling very brave, and would not risk their lives to grab some images of armed homicidal maniacs inside an appartment.


 * They were shooting volleys of full-auto fire to the police. They were shouting and singing. That is what the official version says, during almost 7 hours of "siege". And we have not a single image of them. But, we have a video showing the explosion of the flat. Do you believe that?. OK, I have also a bridge to sell to you.Randroide 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

2.Why "suicidal terrorists" shoot into the air?. You say that, above.


 * Because they want to. Is there any islamic law that forbids them shooting in the air?Burgas00 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, suicidal islamic terrorists want to kill the largest number of infidels possible. A suicidal islamic terrorist, sieged by infidels and shooting into the air is a very strange concept.Randroide 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Why "suicidal terrorists" who (allegedly) killed 191, are fair enough to allow the infidels to evacuate the building before killing themselves (allegedly) in an explosion.


 * Well, they set off the explosions when the police decided to assault the appartment. Thats why a policeman was killed, which was probably their objective. The police is not likely to assault the appartment before evacuating the buildingBurgas00 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes: was probably their objective. A very strange objective: 7 suicides to kill one policeman. Blowing up the building in any other moment, especially before the evacuation would killed much more infidels. They could also made a suicidal shooting spree (a la Banzai!) with the Sterlings (there was a lot of unused Sterling 9mm ammo in the flat), and the last one of them could detonate the explosives after that.Randroide 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

4.Why we have not a single bullet, nor a single lead trace in Leganés after 2 hours of "shootings"?.
 * Well maybe there werent that many shootings. Thats it, big deal. I dont remember that many shots when i watched it on TVBurgas00 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, not so many shootings. Congratulations: You are starting to have doubts about the Official Version. The Official Version tells us tha there was a two hour shooting with volleys of full-automatic fire from the flat. Randroide 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Why, after two hours of "shootings" with automatic weapons there are only 5 empty shells in the debris from the Leganés explosion.
 * Who cares? What difference does this make? Burgas00 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hell. I will tell you who cares:

Anybody who cares about the truth about the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings cares about the impossibilities of the Official Version.

Anybody who cares about the facts, above the prefabricated Official Version.


 * What difference does it make?. A Hell of a difference.

Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.

If the official version tells you something that is clearly impossible (uno), you must then start to doubt everything (omnibus).

Randroide 15:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You dont believe Zapatero's statements therefore he is a liar. Is that a logical argument? Those questions you have presented are the most meagre basis for a conspiracy theory I have ever heard. They are definitely very thin compared to the elements that point to Tony Blair organising the London Bombings and the assasination of Lady Di. We are never going to agree on this, its just a question of personal opinion. In any case, so far, there is only proof that that there is a media campaign to discredit the government and the security forces. There is no proof that the claims of this campaign are truthful. Therefore, only the former must be included in the article as fact.

The final question is: Why does the Spanish right and mainstream conservative media support these conspiracy theories whereas in the US and in the UK they are simply ignored? --Burgas00 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A small treasure of Zapatero non 11-M related lies. I also gave you a gigantic 11-M related lie above.


 * Tony Blair organising the London Bombings and the assasination of Lady Di.

Non sequitur 4 and non sequitur 5.

You could also talk about the history of the Airbag or about the extintion of Trilobites. That would make just the same sense in this context.


 * its just a question of personal opinion

Oh, man. You really wrote that.

Its just a question of personal opinion is the last refuge (the Alpenfestung) of the subjectivist.

I think that was one of your last interventions in our little debate, maybe the last one. After that you have no further place to go.


 * It is NOT a question of personal opinion that the official version talks about a two hour shooting with the terrorists using full-auto fire: "realizaban ráfagas de disparos hacia el exterior".
 * It is NOT a question of personal opinion that there were only two weapons with a full auto capability in the flat: Two Sterling machine guns.
 * It is NOT a question of personal opinion that the Rate of fire of the Sterling SMG in full auto mode is 550 round/min.
 * It is NOT a question of personal opinion that only 5 empty shells were found in the debris of the flat.

And, finally.

A is A. The above 4 statements can not be true. And all of them are in the Official Version.

So the Official Version is FALSE, Q.E.D.


 * there is only proof that that there is a media campaign to discredit the government and the security forces. 

In free countries, even in semi-free countries, there is ALWAYS a media campaign to discredit the government.

36 out of 40 prosecuted for reason of the 11-M turned out to be either security forces informers or controlled by them. Spanish security forces discredited themselves.


 * The final question is: Why does the Spanish right and mainstream conservative media support these conspiracy theories...

Pretty obvious and natural: They want to damage the present goverment. Nothing to be surprised. I am not talking about them (Forget them, please). I am talking about the facts.


 * ..whereas in the US and in the UK they are simply ignored?

I do not know, and it is irrelevant. That´s your non sequitur 6.

You are trying to use the "social metaphysician" old trick: Arguing not about facts, but about what most people thinks about facts.

Again, the subjectivist box of tricks to circumvent reality. Randroide 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00 vs. Randroide discussion. We agree on nothing. We both want Spain to win this afternoon though:-)

 * "there is not a independent judicial power in Spain"


 * Randroide have you been following the news recently??


 * --Burgas00 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Burgass00, have you been following the news in Spain in the last 25 years?: Montesquieu ha muerto (Montesquieu is dead), Alfonso Guerra dixit, in tha late 80s. Randroide 07:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You havent noticed that the judiciary is preventing the government and the PSE from initiating talks with Herri Batasuna? I cant believe that Im having to explain to a Spaniard that Spain is a normal western democratic country... Estas mal de la olla, tío. :-) --Burgas00 09:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * the judiciary is preventing the government and the PSE from initiating talks with Herri Batasuna

...with extremely limited success, so far.

It seems that under your definition of a "a normal western democratic country" is included a country like Spain, where the judiciary and the legislature are mere branches of the executive, and where a citizen can be plundered of all his wealth by the executive without compensation, with the judiciary giving a two thumbs up (see -spanish- Rumasa).

Well. Under my definition, it is not. That is not a "a normal western democratic country"


 * Estas mal de la olla, tío. (ie. :"You are nuts, pal")

Ad hominem 8. Randroide 10:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I understand now. You are one of those who has an obsessive and irrational hatred of the PSOE. I was surprised when you brought up things the PSOE had done before the civil war. I happen to have an uncle like you... Let me say it... Ad hominem 9...--Burgas00 11:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not an obsessive and irrational hatred of the PSOE, I simply make a sober evaluation of that party from the facts of history. Look, man: I try to do not "hate" to anyone. I try to look at today´s newspaper news as someone from the year 2106 would look at them. I even make the "exercise" of reading spanish newspapers from the extremely turbulent 1930s to put present Spain´s situation in perspective.

The horrible things that the PSOE had done before (and during) the 1936-39 Civil War were NOT a legitimate political argument 20 years ago. We, in Spain, made "borrón y cuenta nueva" in 1978.

But now they are. Do you know why?. Because José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero says that the 1930´s Spain was a good thing. For instance:


 * ...la España de hoy mira a la España de la Segunda República con reconocimiento y satisfacción"

Winston Smith is alive and well in the PSOE.

He is extolling the "Segunda República" (1931-39) that his own party tried to destroy in the 1934 Revolution, because the CEDA rightwingers were then at the helm.

I talk about (objective) facts.

You talk about my (subjective) states of mind.

Ad hominem 9, yes, that´s right. Please note that there is a different number for the non sequitur meter.

It is a very good thing if you start to count your own fallacies: You are starting to identify them.

It would be still better if you would stop using them.

Randroide 12:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And you talk about Winston Smith and rewriting history? Now its the PSOE who tried to destroy the CEDA when they were in power? I thought they beat them in democratic elections? And when they won, you know very well what happened. And with the tacit (and sometimes not so tacit) support of the CEDA. Im not denying atrocities commited by any side during the conflict. Indeed, perhaps the only reason they were greater on the national side is because they won. But democracy was destroyed in Spain by means of a gruesome civil war because the conservative forces could not stand having the left in power. It seems they still can't accept it now. --Burgas00 12:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not make the affirmation that the PSOE was behind the 11-M bombings. You can beat that straw man as long as you want if that gives you pleasure, but it is an straw man.


 * But democracy was destroyed in Spain by means of a gruesome civil war

Status: False. 1930s Spain was not, by far, Switzerland. I suggest you to read the superb and non biased book: "El colapso de la República", by Stanley G. Payne.


 * We both want Spain to win this afternoon though

I am sorry. We can not even agree on that. I am not a soccer aficionado. In fact, I just knew through you about this afternoon match. Enjoy the match, anyways.Randroide 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Danger of NPOV
Listen there are many opinions on this issue. For me, as for most Spaniards, what Jimferrer writes is outright lies + garbage. I dont think we should enzarzar ourselves in a war on English wikipedia. It will take too much of our time. There are no experts on the issue in this language and what NPOV editors (I include myself) write will not be contrasted by enough editors challenging them. This article will thus succumb to a small number (perhaps one or 2) editors with a clear political agenda.

I have the impression that NPOV users who cannot impose their views on the Spanish wiki such as jimferrer are coming to this one where less editors will challenge them.

I propose that this article simply mirror the Spanish one since neutrality will be best assured in this way.

--Burgas00 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have erased opinions, but data, from the schedule of the trains in first paragraph. I' ve incluided links to newspapers and media that affirm such things. You are who have tried to impose a political point of view, when denigrating to the mass media that do not defend your thesis. Only I have added something of information which those mass media recover. A neutral issue demands to gather all the important points of view. You are trying to suppress some of them. As in the discussion of above (full of attacks ad hominen to Randroide), you don't respect other wikipedian's work (garbage for you).

PS: The article in spanish is not neutral (only recovers the point of view of PRISA) (See discussion page over there]).--Gimferrer 20:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As I thought. You are exactly what I suspected... I will revert all your edits from now on, except those which consist of provable well sourced fact. This page will mirror the article on es: Wiki. If you dont like what is on Spanish wiki, find a consensus there for possible changes and it will be translated here.--Burgas00 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are reverted well sourced facts: the schedule of the trains in first paragraph, the information about the different bombs, the profanated body of the TEDAX, the official theory of judge Del Olmo (hash traffickers of Moroccan origin, Asturian thiefs, Internet...), the links to El Mundo's articles, the accusations launched by Almodovar or manifestants, etc. However, you are recovered your opinions, as El Mundo is a conservative media (sic). --Gimferrer 16:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You can not delete sourced facts, Burgas00, and you can not add mere opinions. On the other hand, you can delete mere opinions and add sourced facts. I´ll watch your compliance (or lack of it) with these simple Wikipedian guidelines.

Your rantings about the spanish Wikipedia are out of place here. Come here with facts about the Madrid bombings, man, and let us work.Randroide 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To Randroide and JimFerrer
Mirad. Vosotros dos formais parte de la discusión en es:wikipedia. No me parece correcto por vuestra parte el huir hacía la wiki inglesa donde hay menos voces que puedan discrepar de vuestras opiniones. Yo no estoy de acuerdo con vosotros en nada y la verdad es que, como os habreis dado cuenta, me produce cierto cabreo el escucharos a vosotros, a Jimenez Losantos y demas personajes. Pero no quiero entrar en el tema. Si según vosotros el articulo Español representa a la voz del entramado Prisa-ETA-GAL-PSOE-Alqaeda, utilizad vuestros argumentos y fuentes para que aquel artículo sea NPOV, y una vez encontrado un consenso, el artículo será placidamente traducido al inglés.

Un Saludo --Burgas00 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not important if you are agree or not with these newspapers or mass media (your opinion, your annoyances and your personal attacks are not important for this article), but to reflect the reality. You have tried to impose a political point of view, when denigrating to the mass media (the second and fourth newspaper and the second radio station in Spain) that do not defend your thesis. The worse thing is than you also insult to wikipedians that do not support your opinions. Here I have been including information of several mass media (not only PRISA). It's so easy... --Gimferrer 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Come here with your sourced facts, Burgass00, and we´ll come here with ours. That´s all I have to say.Randroide 17:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning for English users and Administrators
There exists in Spain a small group of fanatics who think that the bombing was done by the current Spanish governement that was at that time the opposition party. They have many picturesque and bizzarre ways to state this non-sense and some variations involving secret services from France or Basque terrorist organisations (you will get painfully familiar with this crap so it is no needed that I give you details). The only solution is to block them and all their IPs. If you do not do this ASAP you will have all their rambling atrocities written again and again. In Spanish Wikipedia we are sick of these guys trolling tactics regarding a so sensitive issue. A more soft solution, could be to give them a special page for their deliriums as had been done with other conspiranoics. It is up to you. My message is that I cannot double my activity and controll this nuts in English Wikipedia and many colleagues in the Spanish wikipedia are in the same situation. So it is up to you what to do between the next given three posibilities.

1-Allow them to publicize their aberrations spoiling the credibility of Wikipedia

2-Give them a page to at least have the damage controlled

3-Block them forever.

The 11-M were islamic terrorist actions as anyone with brain can see so I do not thing they will convince nobody but is really anoying to see their dirty lies exposed as truth. If someone wants to do something, please do it.

--Igor21 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I second this statement.

--Burgas00 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer from one of the "fanatics":

Come here with your sourced facts. We will come here with ours.


 * There exists in Spain a small group of fanatics who think that the bombing was done by the current Spanish governement

We never, never, never said that. Quote, please?.


 * fanatics, bizzarre, crap, trolling tactics, deliriums, nuts, aberrations, anyone with brain can see, dirty lies

I warn you: You are infringing WP:NPA. Randroide 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Some order please, guys!
Hi o hola everybody. I am a third and neutral party in this debate. I've had a look at the situation and see no reason for all this mess. The solution is so simple. No edit warring is needed.
 * First, the "Alleged Smoking gun against the Official Version" should exist as it contains sourced material from a notable newspaper. Also, the title if the section is totally NPOV as it contains the word "alleged".
 * Second, the section should be repositioned at the end of main articles as it is considered a fork section.
 * If the edit warring persists, i'll be obliged to protect the page untill things are sorted out.
 * Finally, please refrain from personal attacks. Cheers -- Szvest 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * I agree with you on all four points you make. Additionally, I think some wikification of the format of the section under discussion is warranted. However, I am not sure if I should start working on it while the mediation takes place, or if I should wait until it ends. Anagnorisis  00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning on the warning
The first thing i though coming here was: ''damn! this problematic has been taken here too!''

Please note that this is a very problematic subject. If you can read spanish i strongly encourage you to see the Spanish version at es:Atentados del 11 de marzo de 2004 as it's easier to detect untrue facts there than on the English version (i haven't still read the article, so i'm stating nothing about the current one). You can see the long long discussions at es:Discusión:Atentados del 11 de marzo de 2004.

It's not a small group of fanatics who think that the bombing was done by the current Spanish governement, but a group of people which thinks there are contradictions and non-senses on the investigations. They ask for more and better investigations on the subject.

I've heard nobody clearly stating that the current Spanish goverment (of Rodriguez Zapatero, PSOE) set the bombs. They have been accused of hiding information, true, as PSOE accused PP (the previous goverment) the days following the bombings. They were favoured by the bombings so there have also been speculations about PSOE supporters favouring them or unrevealing what they knew in order to avoid the bombings.

Involving Basque terrorist organisations is not a bizarre way as 99% terrorism done in Spain has been done by the Basque terrorist gang ETA. All the political parties agreed at the very beginning that 11-M had been done by ETA.

I'm very sorry you state ''The only solution is to block them and all their IPs. If you do not do this ASAP you will have all their rambling atrocities written again and again.'' I thought better of you.

I don't agree about the trolling nor as the Spanish Wikipedia sick of it. That many colleagues in the Spanish wikipedia seems excesive too, as there's little (and stubborn) people discussing it (on both ways).

It's strange you accuse of trolling when Randroide has been (or it seems to me) answering point by point you statements, many based on ad hominems.

What i do agree is in not taking here the discussion. I propose not moving the english version up and down, until a real consensus gets on the Spanish one (though it seems veeery hard).

About clearly for brained people, i see clear that any brained people can agree in that we were told that they were islamic terrorist actions. If there are brainer people which says that it was only said to hide us other facts, you shouldn't discard it too fast. You risk of being in the less brained group ;)

Platonides 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request
A mediation page has just been created User talk:FayssalF/11M. -- Szvest 14:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

There's a small number of conspiracy theorists bent on furthering their own political agenda that is spoiling this article with non-objective facts. ( Unsigned comment by User:88.0.179.134 )


 * That's the reason the link above is set for. Please do not blank content as it is considered vandalism. You are instead welcomed to participate in the debate following the link above. It serves to hear the arguments in order to sort out if there are or not any non-objective facts. Please create an account or you can still use your IP to participate there. Cheers -- Szvest 20:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has blamed the Socialist party or the Police for the bombings
It is said that there are theories blaming the police and the Socialist party for the attack. I live in Spain and NOBODY has even mentioned that possibility.

The controversy is over the handling of information by the Partido Popular and pro-Socialist media two days before a general election, and how it influenced the result and, later police information and investigation errors.

There's no indication in the article as the reason WHY the Partido Popular and newspapers like El Mundo favor a theory of ETA involvement. It is very clear: the Partido Popular had supported involvement in Irak by sending troops (in Spain it has been exemplified by the infamous 'foto de las Azores' --Azores photo-- with the then President Aznar, Bush and Blair) while the Socialist party opposed it. Partido Popular supporters want to avoid the obvious idea that Al-Quaeda were retaliating for such an involvement in two ways: first denying that those Islamic extremists now in jail had retaliation in mind (though some of them have actually said so) and then by pointing to the historic enemy of Spain in the last 30 years.

El Mundo newspaper has been losing a good share of credibility it won by exposing Socilaist corruption during the Felipe Gonzalez's governments, now blundering repeatedly in front pages by trying to support the theory of ETA involvement with far-fetched 'facts'.

--Savedor 13:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

ANSWER:


 * I live in Spain and NOBODY has even mentioned that possibility.

NOBODY AROUND YOU, man. Turn on the COPE Radio station, buy the El Mundo (Spain) or La Razón (España) newspaper, start to read LIbertad Digital and the possibility, just the possibility, is mentioned every day.

Let the "facts" (as you call the massive factual data provided by El Mundo (Spain) speak for themselves, Savedor, and let the reader judge if they are "far-fetched" or not.


 * It is very clear: the Partido Popular had supported involvement in Irak by sending troops

Please, please, please. I beg you: Tell the whole history.

The "islamists" who allegedly made the bombings (now that allegation is in serious trouble) said that the bombings were caused by the spanish troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Do not drop the Afghanistan name, please, because Spain has now MORE soldiers now in Afghanistan than in 2004. According with the official version Spain is now just in the same risk of "Islamist" attacks as it was in 2004.

Randroide 13:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Randroide, where's the Socialist goverment accused of so? I'm not including references to:
 * People involved in GAL
 * PSOE supporters/affiliated
 * Phrases/placards said on demonstrations (specially those against the PSOE current terrorist policy, which is favouring ETA)
 * Informal chatting (in or out the internet)
 * AFAIK, it hasn't been said, although indirectly in many people's mind. Platonides 18:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Federico Jiménez Losantos repeats the qui prodest argument on a daily basis, linking that argument with the ETA-PSOE current negotiations. You can hear him in the COPE website if you want additional proof. He also repeats that line on his "El Mundo" section, and the "La Razón" manager agrees with him when he appears in the Radio program.

Please note that I do not agree wih those assertions. I think those assertions are unfounded... but another user said that NOBODY has even mentioned that possibility. Well, that´s not true.Randroide 19:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Savedor: You claim to live in Spain but I dont know what planet you live on if you have not noticed that a whole portion of the right media is accusing (more than insinuating) the police and judiciary of lying and the PSOE and ETA of being implicated in the attacks. For once I agree with Randroide...

Randroide: I am glad you do not support these accusations yourself. I have had a look at your edits one by one and I feel that there is a degree of neutrality in them (unlike Gimferrer). I still feel you are victimized by alot of misinformation which has been made public as "Facts". See also what I wrote on the RfC opened by Faysal. --Burgas00 09:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted information VS Burgas00's opinions
Well, I don't know why Burgas00 has deleted the next information (all with well sourced facts) ''The provincial chief of the TEDAX (bomb experts at spanish police) declared on July 12th 2004, that damage in the trains could not be caused by dynamite, but by some type of military explosive, like C3 or C4. Two bombs (one in Atocha and another one in El Pozo stations, numbers 11 and 12) were detonated accidentally by the TEDAX. According the provincial chief of the TEDAX, deactivated rucksacks contained some other type of explosive. The 13th bomb (translated to a police station) contain dynamite, but did not explode, because there were not two wires connecting the explosives to the detonator. That bomb used a mobile phone Mitsubishi Trium as a timer, requiring a SIM card to activate the alarm, and thereby detonate. The analysis of the SIM card allowed the police to arrest the first perpetrators.'' :A link about detentions:.
 * the schedule of the trains: (7:36-7:40 AM)
 * the information about the different bombs:
 * The body of that police was profanated on the next days.

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

A neutral issue demands to gather all the important points of view (not only PRISA or ABC). Here I have been including information about theories from these media (not only the Burgas00's opinions about them):
 * as well as accuse affirm that the "three capital evidences on the lawsuit have been falsified by elements on the Policy statements":


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


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


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


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

Burgas00 only talks about "the extremely serious accusations launched by members of the Partido Popular and a number of conservative media outlets". He deleted the information about the accusations launched by Almodovar or manifestants to Partido Popular.
 * In some manifestations, Aznar was called Assassin and several ministers were struck. The film director Pedro Almodóvar declared to the international press that “the PP was on the verge of causing a coup d'etat” 

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

Summary: Burgas00 have tried to impose a political point of view, when denigrating to the mass media (the second and fourth newspaper and the second radio station in Spain) that do not defend your thesis. It's necessary to add something of information which those mass media recover (not only PRISA). --Gimferrer 13:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Campaign To Change English Accounts Of 11th March
--Southofwatford 18:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC) I have noticed in the last few days that there has been a particularly determined and aggressive campaign to make changes to English language accounts of the March 11th bombings - and this campaign comes from those who support the conspiracy theory that the bombings were carried out by an alliance of the current governing party in Spain together with ETA and possibly other agents. This camapign has led to changes to this page, to that on the definition of the explosive Titadine, and possibly to other pages too. I have no intention of getting involved in the intense argument that has been taking place on this issue here and I do not want to edit anything at the moment. What I would suggest though is that we return to the versions that existed 7 days ago, that is before the recent "revelations" in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo that have motivated this mini-campaign. I will declare my position - I think these theories are absurd nonsense. I have however read extensively enough on the subject to make a judgement. The article should acknowledge the existence and origin of these theories without permitting them to be given the same weight as the known facts about the bombings. The introduction of the "smoking gun" section in this article is completely out of place and I think it should go. It is entirely based on one verbal statement made by one bomb disposal official 2 years ago - not sufficient grounds for inclusion however enthusiastic some people have got about it. The sources given for it are anything but neutral, given that they are the principal cheerleaders for the conspiracy theory. The account that existed before these latest changes may not have been perfect, but it was better than what we have now, and I think we should resist campaigns of this sort which seek to manipulate the content of the previous version here, to twist it towards the political preferences of the authors.

- --Saind campaigners are polluting the opbjectivity of this article with unproven conspiracy theories.

— --Southofwatford 19:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC) It is probably unlikely to make any difference to those who favour the conspiracy theory but the bomb disposal expert whose declaration has been used to support the latest changes has declared before the investigating judge that he was mistaken in his declarations 2 years ago - the "smoking gun" never smoked very much and now appears to have given up the habit - I repeat my plea for a return to an earlier more objective version

Thankyou Southofwatford. Finnally a voice of reason. Please go ahead. Revert to one week ago or 2 weeks if you want. I will support you. --Burgas00 10:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

--Southofwatford 11:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) I could just go in and revert, but I am still a bit reluctant to do so - being relatively new to Wikipedia and wanting to achieve an account of the bombings that hopefully avoids contamination each time a new "exclusive" gets published in Spain. If we revert I think we do it as part of a 4 part strategy where reverting is only the first step, the other 3 being:

1). the article probably needs some updating to record the latest objective developments i.e. the case has now been formally presented as ready for trial by the investigating judge

2). we do need to find a way to deal with what, for want of a better word, we can describe as "alternative" theories about the bombings, again to avoid people interested in these theories from just coming in and ruining the coherence of the main article by dumping the latest part of their theory in the middle.

3). it seems to me worthwhile to make an attempt to unite and keep in step the Spanish and English versions, why should what we read about the bombings depend on the language we choose to read it in?

I recognise this might be too ambitious as it requires a level of collaboration that might not be achievable - but I prefer it to just going in and trying to impose my version only for someone else to overwrite my changes 10 minutes later

Southofwatford wrote


 * we do need to find a way to deal with what, for want of a better word, we can describe as "alternative" theories about the bombings, again to avoid people interested in these theories from just coming in and ruining the coherence of the main article by dumping the latest part of their theory in the middle.

Read this,en:Wikipedia:Content forking, please.Randroide 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

--Southofwatford 12:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) I've read it and it seems to me that what we need is a "spinout" so that the conspiracy theories do not mar the main account, which can still include a brief summary. That way we can restore the coherence of the main account and not have to run the risk of duplicating it elsewhere.

--Southofwatford 18:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Seeing the changes that have been made today it is now clear that this section has become a battleground, and that the entry is now an incoherent and often contradictory mess. The bits which have been left are the least controversial but equally out of date parts. Please lets return to a version that at least made coherent sense even if it didn't include everyone's pet obsessions. Someone help me out here, what do I do to prevent the ridiculous hijacking of a sensible account? Do I have to revert, what is my alternative?

Revert Watford! The funniest thing is that no mention is made of the proof of the Aznar government's manipulation and outright lies claiming it was ETA who were responsible at stages when they knew perfectly well that it was the Islamists who were responsible. --Burgas00 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00,

I admit I am not a regular listener or reader of COPE radio or La Razon newspaper. I used to tune to COPE some time ago but never took Losantos seriously but as an early morning joke to wake me up while driving to work.

The bottom line: anybody reading the article may be given the impression that unknown to me suggestion of Socialist party involvement is a mainstream theory. I am not sure if those righ-wing media ever mentioned it because you can hear and read almost anything bad about the Socialist party in them but it is not something that is heard often (Again,I never did) or considered even as a possibility. For example it was never brought up either in the parlaimentary comission or the investigation in court or the trial.

I never delete Wikipedia information without the writer's consent but I do believe that the reference to the PSOE involvement weakens the reliability of the article. --Savedor 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think the "alternative theories" part should be in another article, like in the Spanish Wikipedia. I've read the content forking guidelines, which say that it should be avoided when it's used to include two different POV about the same subject. But this wouldn't be the case.

In the main article there would be just the facts known by then to the public about the attacks, the Parliamentary Comission and the inquiries made so far by the judge. In an "alternative theories" article, all the alternative theories part. I think it could be done without many POV problems, at least for the main article.

--Southofwatford 08:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC) I don't want to make an edit war worse than it already is by reverting, and unfortunately it looks like I would have to revert back several weeks to restore a sensible version of this article. However something has to be done because constant editing is taking place without reference to this discussion page. I am prepared to spend time on a major edit of this article, which would accommodate "alternative theories" as well as updating factual information to take account of recent events. However, for personal reasons I cannot do this before the second half of August. What I am considering today is requesting protection of this page to prevent further deterioration of the existing account, and then in August we can try to sort it out so that a balanced account exists. I would ask all those who are unable to change the Spanish page to reflect their opinions to leave this English version ALONE please. Ruining this article is an unsatisfactory solution to not being able to include your favourite version in the Spanish article. I'm open to better suggestions but in the absence of any of these I will request page protection later today to at least preserve something of what used to be a sensible and reasonable account.

This Article is so NPOV and pro-PP it is almost funny. It would be a shame for wikipedia to leave it as it is and protecting it. --Burgas00 09:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

--This article is a shame. The objective truth has been twisted by a campaign by nutjob extremists. It shouldn't be protected as it is, all the conspiracy theories should be removed from the main article. 192 people died and this is an afffront to their memory. --dmar

— --Southofwatford 11:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC) dmar - I am not at all happy with the content of the article but neither is the editing war currently in progress doing anything to improve the content of the article, in fact it is making it worse. So my request for protection is aimed at introducing a cool off period which will permit the preparation of a new article that will deal with some of the issues raised. I am prepared to take on that job, and I have outlined here some of the things that I think need to be done. When the hole gets too deep we have to stop digging and start looking for a way out.

Ok SOW, I am very busy until august so wont be able to help u out. But I support your proposal 100%.--Burgas00 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

- --- But we did not dig the hole, my friend. Anyway, I support your proposal, too. dmar

Not an editing war at all, Southofwatford
Hi, Southofwatford.

You wrote:


 * I am not at all happy with the content of the article but neither is the editing war currently in progress

Look at the "history" tab. There is not an edit war at all, only a lot of blanking and vandalism, and some new data added from time to time. Burgas00 was the last one to add new data...he also made some blanking, but that´s not the issue now.

If you are not happy with the current article, I encourage you to add new sourced NPOV information. All contributions doing so are welcomed. Que tengas un buen día. Randroide 11:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

--Southofwatford 12:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Your definition of editing war is obviously not the same as mine - just look at the quantity of changes made over the last few days! Vandalism is something that is done to deliberately reduce the quality of the article - that is not what has been happening here, even though the combination of so many changes has actually had the effect of making the article significantly worse than it was 2 months ago. I do not intend to go making changes that will be almost certainly overwritten 10 minutes later - that is not a solution


 * Blanking again and again an article is not editing at all. Reversing blankings is not an edit war.


 * If you want to add to the article new sourced NPOV data, there is a lot of people here to protect your work, and I am one of them.Randroide 12:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

--Southofwatford 12:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) I don't want to add to the article, I want to redraft it - this article has lost any balance it previously had, it reads badly and the story it tells gives a misleading impression. Its possible to find a source for almost anything on the Internet, it doesn't mean it should be reproduced here.

--Southofwatford 07:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Well it appears that my request to protect what remains of this article has not been accepted, on the slightly curious grounds that the level of activity does not justify protection. I say curious because the level of activity only seems to have dropped once I requested protection! Please note that we are ALL requested to signal our editing intentions in the talk page and via the edit summaries.

Anyway, it is still my intention to work on a major edit of this document. Because of personal commitments this will not happen before the second half of August - hopefully there will still be something left of the original article at this point :). The principles I intend to follow in this edit are the following:

- narrowing the differences between the Spanish and English accounts

- tidying up some historical inaccuracies in the article

- updating the article with fresh information

- finding a suitable structure that permits acknowledgement of the different points of view on who carried out the bombings, without disrupting tthe structure of the document and based on the principle that neutrality in description does not mean that all theories are absolutely equivalent.

I hope, although I am not convinced of it, that the recent editing war is now closed.

--Southofwatford 08:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC) I have made an update to Controversies 2.3 to correct a few words or inconsistencies, and also to include an update on testimony of bomb disposal officials before the investigating judge

--Southofwatford 10:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) I have changed the sequence of the quoted statements in Controversies 2.3 to reflect their correct chronological order. I have also changed a quote to the exact wording in the source provided

--Southofwatford 10:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC) I object to the use of the words "Official Version" - no such document exists. If this is a reference to the judicial summary or to another document then that should be made clear. "Official Version" is a typical conspiracy theorists description because it conjures up the image of a monolithic version against which the poor helpless conspiracy theorist must struggle.

I am very glad we can work togther, Southofwatford
Hello, Southofwatford. Congratulations for the improvementts you made to the article.

You wrote:


 * I object to the use of the words "Official Version" - no such document exists. If this is a reference to the judicial summary or to another document then that should be made clear

You are right. But the judicial summary is not equal to the explanation of the facts that the current spanish government makes....and that explanation (I am trying to avoid the word version) is not good enough to some spanish Media and PP politicians.

--Southofwatford 13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC) The judicial summary contains the results of the investigations over the last 2 years, and is the basis for the forthcoming trial - this makes it the single most important documentary reference. The media and PP politicians you refer to are just as opposed to the summary, the moment it was first issued out popped one PP spokesman to complain about ETA not getting a mention. In any case, the summary maintains that GOMA-2 ECO was the explosive used in the bombs, so for the purposes of this section it is not different from anything the government maintains.

-- Randroide 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is NOT about truth, but about verificability. Wikipedia can not say that summary contains the results of the investigations over the last 2 years, because that is a disputed fact (vide supra my discussion with Burgas00). We must give equal voice to all relevant sides.

--Southofwatford 18:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Well I disagree, or maybe I wasn't precise enough. The summary contains the results of the police and judicial investigation over the last 2 years. It doesn't contain the result of Luis Del Pino's investigation or El Mundo's investigation - for reasons we are almost certainly going to disagree about. Equal voice to all relevant sides surely doesn't mean that the conspiracy theory has to be treated as equivalent to the judicial investigation - its most definitely not the same thing. Drawing interpretations from the absence of evidence or details to support something is hardly the same process as a judicial investigation. I can do the first, I doubt my ability to do the second.

¿Could you please suggest an alternative, non charged, terminology?.

--Southofwatford 13:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC) "Questions over the type of explosive used in the bombs". Very boring, no smoking guns - but it does have the advantage of referring to the subject matter of the section.

--Randroide 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC) You are right, sir. I will change it.

--Randroide 13:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) I made it. And now...could you please suggest an alternative to the "official version" issue?. .

--Southofwatford 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) I'm not really willing to suggest an alternative because it means looking for a name for something that I do not believe exists - at least in the way that vocabulary such as "official version" tries to describe it. If you want to talk about something a government minister has said you do not need another description than "the government's version of events". If its something forming part of the judicial investigation then likewise, its "the events as described in the summary". If its a newspaper version then its the "version of events according to El Mundo/ABC/El País". What are you losing by describing things as they really are - convenience, a straw man target?


 * The principles I intend to follow in this edit are the following: narrowing the differences between the Spanish and English accounts

Please feel free to improve the article, but remember that you should avoid POV, unsourced facts and blanking. There is no rule for narrowing the differences between different versions of the same article, so I suggest you to use the spanish version as a Quarry for useful sourced data. Cheers Randroide 13:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

--Southofwatford 13:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Narrowing the difference does not mean "making it the same as", nor do I expect to be the only person involved in the process of making these decisions. Also, many things which require little or no explanation for Spanish people need to be explained to a more international audience. However, the Spanish version is much more comprehensive than this article, it has a better, more coherent structure and I therefore believe we should make maximum use of it. That is, if the "black pawns" have not assaulted that version as well by August.

--Randroide 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)14:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Could you please tell what is a "black pawn" ("peón negro") to the english speaking wikipedians?. Your english is much better than mine, and it is a relevant expression in our dialogue.

The own black pawns have several documents in english. They can help with this (please note they are usually Spanish so they do have mistakes in English). 11 M known lies

''The summary contains the results of the police and judicial investigation over the last 2 years. It doesn't contain the result of Luis Del Pino's investigation or El Mundo's investigation'' Of course it doesn't have! Luis Del Pino's and El Mundo's are based on the summary informations specially on the auto). They highlight what -in their opinion- is contradictory.

You're welcome in reforming and adding information, but please, cite as many references as you can. It's much better to have who stated what about the bombs/vehicles/terorists...

Platonides 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The most important part right now is citing and referencing all the information. I've made a start and Randroide also marked places which needs to be cited. I found another section which was blanked, so maybe somebody should check the history, reference it and restore the blanked information. An introduction with the four train stations and the timeline would be very much appreciated, because that seems to be missing (or maybe blanked as well). Dr Debug (Talk) 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Summary was deleted as well. It's been restored again. There is probably more missing, because there was a pretty template on the top right however there are several versions. Dr Debug (Talk) 14:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)