This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.elpais.com/comunes/2007/11m/index.html
I have lightly corrected the English, which isn't bad, but uses terms unfamilar in English, like 'confident' for 'informer'. Tenses were often a bit muddled, and these have been cleaned up. Chasnor15 ( talk) 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This editor [1] failed to read the notice...
The discussion was lost when this page was moved.
And here we are again. I reverted the deletion of the section.
I think that the section is perfectly NPOV.
Where is the problem with the section, sir?. How can we fix it?. Randroide ( talk) 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Alleged "motives" of editors (being those motives political, philosophical, religious, dietetic, estetic, whatever) are totally irrelevant. Only the faithful sourcing of data counts. Plase note that I have never (and I shall never) mention your "motives".
Uh. Where are those activists?. This article seems a rather empty place. Randroide ( talk) 10:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article's existence is a testimony to your decision, which is documented in the talk pages, to introduce material from the pro conspiracy theories Peones Negros sect in an encyclopaedic format. That is political activism as is your rigorous cherry picking and selective use of sources to take material which supports those political positions. Maybe you don't think that constitutes political activism, but I disagree. When editors decide as you did to deliberately insert political points of view they support into an article then other editors are perfectly entitled to comment on the fact as being very relevant. Southofwatford ( talk) 10:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article's existence is a testimony to my decision of having ALL the sourced facts ans ONLY sourced facts present. Randroide ( talk) 11:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you have made such political and highly selective use of sources only backs up what I say about political motivations, as do you repeated assertions that it is up to other editors to balance your biased editions. No, it isn't and doing so would not produce an NPOV article. That you can find sources supporting your political position doesn't change that. Sourced garbage doesn't cease to be garbage. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Where are the sources and data you are demanding adding that POV tag? Randroide ( talk) 11:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand that question. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Implicitly you are asking por new data to restore the (allegedly lost) NPOV that you are claiming is lost while you add the POV tag. Where are the sources for that data? Randroide ( talk) 11:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If you seriously believe that this is a comprehensive or balanced exploration of the explosives issue then it is hard to believe you have read as widely on the subject as you claim to have done. I am not claiming that NPOV has been lost, I don't believe it ever existed in this section. Incidentally, just to make it clear, I was not the editor who originally placed this tag but I support the decision to do so. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Where are the sources to make it NPOV?. Plase add those sources. Randroide ( talk) 11:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame I have to repeat it again, but I will. I am not taking responsibility for making your very POV material NPOV - apart from anything else that would simply run the risk of reviving a dispute that I have left behind me. I am simply not prepared to spend more months receiving bullying threats and bogus wikipedia warnings on my talk page with no visible result for putting up with that crap. A solution to this page requires the acknowledgement that it is not a political platform for a noisy but sectarian campaign. Your responses today offer little hope on that front. Southofwatford ( talk) 12:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I acknowledge formally that this is not a political platform not a campaign of any kind.
And now, again: Where are the sources to make this article NPOV?. Please add those sources. I am never going to oppose the addition of sourced data. Randroide ( talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Make your own contributions NPOV, I am not your secretary and I refuse to reopen the dispute over every line of content of these articles. You could start by looking outside of the conspiracy theorists axis for information and it would help if your selection from the sources was not just confined to those parts that suit your purposes. Southofwatford ( talk) 12:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing the article, I have come to this opinion, The section Is NOT in violation of NPOV. The article explicity explains in the name that the information is about the Controversies surrounding the bombings. The section simply presents the information as it is, and is from a newspaper. In today's world, notable newspapers are written in a neutral standpoint. Dusti speak and be heard! 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If that sourced account is not in the article, I actually encourage you to please add that sourced info. I have never and I shall never oppose the addition of sourced info.
No, sir. Just the opposite is the truth. Please read:
Randroide ( talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I again have to say, this article does not fail WP:NPOV. If you have a further issue that I cannot resolve, please go to here. If there is something that I can help you with, please let me know here or leave a comment on my talk page. Dusti speak and be heard! 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am addressing those issues:
I do not known what you are talking about. The disputed section uses 9 different sources: From "El Mundo" to "El País", from manufacturers data sheets to the Spanish Congress. Randroide ( talk) 17:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something here, there are numerous references that support almost any selected section. What's violating WP:NPOV here? Dusti speak and be heard! 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::It sounds to me, sir, that you have a
conflict of interest and may not want to edit this article any further. Doing so may result in consequences, possibly leading up to being blocked.
Dusti
speak and be heard! 17:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have striken the comment and am looking at the text. Sorry for any misunderstanding sir. Dusti complain/compliment 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - appreciated. Southofwatford ( talk) 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Southofwatford wrote [3]: "A headline that isn't even backed up by the information contained in the article should not qualify as an acceptable piece of sourced information, regardless of the notability of the source "
Southofwatford wrote [4]: "Prior to the 11-M trial extensive recorded tests were carried out on samples from the explosion sites and on multiple remains of Goma 2 Eco explosive recovered from different sites associated with the bombings"
Well, Southofwatford: You are refusing to source your POV allegations. I asked you two questions [5], and you are refusing to substantiate your assertions. Randroide ( talk) 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You talked and I asked you about tests performed BEFORE the trial. Read your own words:
[6]: "Prior to the 11-M trial extensive recorded tests were carried out on samples from the explosion sites and on multiple remains of Goma 2 Eco explosive recovered from different sites associated with the bombings"
Again: Where are those tests you say were been performed BEFORE the trial. Randroide ( talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
To who it concerns....I have removed the section that is being disupted for NPOV. It is pure speculation and no real information is given to benifit the article. If you diagree with this move, please comment on my talk page. Dusti complain/compliment 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(Bolds added by me) Randroide ( talk) 11:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO, this is a extremely bad edit [8]
Some (properly sourced) Facts listed in the removed section:
Could you please point where´s the "speculation" here?. I only see hard-as-nails facts. Randroide ( talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Per se is not. But that´s not the case here.
Pointing to the fact that ABC, Gara, EFE and Europa Press said that Nitroglycerine traces were found in the trains, that Sánchez Manzano mentioned Nitroglycerine as well, and that the explosive alleguedly used by the allegued islamists (Goma-2 ECO) did NOT contain Nitroglycerine but Nitroglycol are hard as nails FACTS.
Please note that this issue uncovered bu "El Mundo" forced the Spanish Judiciary to find alternative explanations about the presence of Nitroglycerine in the trains. You know: The contamination "speculation", "theory" or whatever way you choose to name it [9] [10] [11] Randroide ( talk) 08:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My preferred sources disagree with your preferred sources. For instance: "El Mundo" maintains that the issue with the explosives has not been solved:
Your preferred sources probably disagree. Fine. Please then add your preferred sources and please move on on this issue.
For the sake of WP:NPOV both sides of the controversy ("yours" and "mine") must be in the article. Randroide ( talk) 11:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is not achieved by you cherry picking sources that you like and then selecting only the information from them that suits you, and it will not be achieved even if I then do the same with other sources. I will not be forced into a sectarian and partial position by this method. Your insistence that both sides be represented is ironic considering your tooth and nail defence of a version that was wholly structured around your version of events - the nitroglycerine issue. The trial, the sentence and the tests on the explosives never existed according to your version - how balanced is that? A balanced, encyclopaedic account will not be possible whilst you insist that it is up to other editors to chase after and clean up your partial accounts and bunkers. That is why, in the end, this section has had to be removed. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
As usual you have opted for imposing a solution rather than seeking consensus when you are not getting your own way. You have ignored the views of editors who disagree with you and no Wikipedia policy that you can quote allows to disregard other opinions in this way. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Southwatford can edit the article without removing it from the mainspace. Moreover: There´s a POV tag to warn the casual reader about the disputed nature of the section. Removing (even temporarily) the section from the mainspace would prevent the casual reader to know about the dispute at all. If he is suddenly so worried about a section POV tagged since 2006, I suggest him to hurry the rewriting process. And yes, he can edit the mainspace as long as he does not delete nor info nor sources Randroide ( talk) 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Outside Opinion. I think the 72-hour removal proposal is a good idea. It's time-limited and can allow editors to work on a small section at a time to get consensus. However, if you do not have consensus within 72 hours, which version will be replaced? (I hope that this question is actually unnecessary!) Renee ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing some tag cleanup on WP. First off, I'll say that I'm not some sort of high WP official, just doing some work. It is my feeling that Southofwatford did not make his case for a NPOV tag, and presented no credible reasoning why it should remain. It is also my feeling that the article is, though perhaps poorly written, certainly not biased in the WP spirit and definition, as has been pointed out in this discussion. I'm removing the tag, any comments can be directed here or to my talk page directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdon ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Jjdon ( talk) 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Forgot to sign, but Bot did it, too.
I think I presented several reasons on why the tag should remain - none of my arguments are addressed by your comment here. If you think my case is insufficient then it would be helpful if you said why you think that. Also, I'm in the process of doing a rewrite which I think will only emphasise the arguments I have already made and given the evident dispute over the content of the existing section it would make sense to leave the tag at least until my alternative version has been presented. Southofwatford ( talk) 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What I have changed in the rewrite of the section on the explosives issue:
The timeline is established – things are put in order so that the narrative of developments is coherent and in context.
Where I can find useful English language sources I have added them – none is really available on the detail of the explosives tests.
Speculative headlines and opinions have been removed but it is still left very clear that there were disagreements and what these disagreements are about.
I’ve added significant missing detail and facts on the results of the explosives tests. There is much more to this than just the question of nitroglycerine.
I don’t feel that it’s acceptable or useful to try and present the issue as just being between rival newspaper accounts – this article is not about the media - so I’ve left in the facts and the newspaper accounts are still sourced without it being presented as just a question of what a newspaper says. This is not just about the viewpoint of El Mundo versus that of El País.
I think the resulting section is factually accurate, NPOV, representative in the selection of sources and concise without leaving important issues unmentioned. It addresses the deficiencies which justified the placing of a POV tag on the original section. Both sections can be viewed together at User:Southofwatford/rewrite.
Southofwatford ( talk) 15:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is no feedback on the rewritten section by May 9th (Friday) I propose to insert it into the article. Southofwatford ( talk) 09:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I had been busy. Congratulations for the excellent job you, Southofwatford. Can I write in your talpage to tweak your text?. Overall, you did a great job. Randroide ( talk) 09:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to propose changes then I suggest you make a copy of my text and place it below mine under a new header. Southofwatford ( talk) 09:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That was just my idea. Thank you for the permission. I shall do it ASAP. Randroide ( talk) 09:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
So how are you getting on with your response on this? Southofwatford ( talk) 16:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Badly, Southofwatford. I am overworked. Thank you for your interest. I am going to paste "your" version as a stopgap. Congratulations for the nice text you wrote, albeit you left out some info.We shall talk things later. .CU Randroide ( talk) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I did a copy edit of the "13th bomb" section per the copy edit tag, and have improved the language. The section needs further improvement by an expert, because what exactly was found by the police is ambiguous. Did the police find an unexploded bomb, the bag containing the bomb, or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Tan ( talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well regardless of the so called doubts expressed by the conspiracy theorists, it is possible to answer these questions. There was an unexploded bomb, and it was inside a sports bag. It's not just a media group invention that supports the idea of the bomb being found amongst possessions being removed from the train, it was accepted during the exhaustive and lengthy trial as a valid piece of evidence. Those who claim it was not on the train use the absence of absolute proof for its presence as their only argument to sustain the belief that it was faked. Each to their own. Obviously, the whole conspiracy theory structure cannot survive if the bomb is accepted as genuine; it's faith against facts. Southofwatford ( talk) 08:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You do not know that, Southofwatford. There is contradictory evidence.
I do not know neither if the the 13th was a fake.
Please, why we do not try to forget about what we believe about the issue and try to focus on what sources said.
And it is a fact that sources voiced different interpretations about the 13th bag.
Thank you for your attentiom. Randroide ( talk) 07:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, even the most wacky sections of the conspiracy theorists don't attempt to deny the existence of the device itself. There is not contradictory evidence for the existence of the bomb, and its entirely misleading to suggest this. There are those who claim it was faked - without providing a single fact to support the allegation, but you can't assert that something could have been faked if at the same time you claim it doesn't exist at all! It's not about beliefs, simply about elementary logic. Southofwatford ( talk) 08:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
A lot of evidence was presented pointing to the 13th being a fake. Just read the linked articles.
Of course you are entitled to regard that evidence as weak, inconclusive or even fabricated. But evidence of the 13th being a fake was presented by major media, that´s a fact. Randroide ( talk) 09:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
So leaving aside the "if you can't prove it was on the train then its obviously a fake" type of evidence, we do now accept that the device actually existed? After all even a fake has to exist. You do accept that don't you? Southofwatford ( talk) 09:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have answered the questions that you said it was impossible to answer Randroide. There was a bomb and it was in a sports bag. That is the answer to the questions posed by Samuel Tan. Floating allegations about fakes doesn't change that very simple reality. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Who doubted that, Southofwatford?. Who?. Provide a link, please (if you can, but you can not). And take a look at Straw man. Randroide ( talk) 12:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Samuel Tan asked on this page if there was a bomb and you replied that this was impossible to answer - I don't need to provide a link, its just a few centimetres above this reply. All that I have tried to do here is answer the question that was posed, unambiguously. Southofwatford ( talk) 12:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Samuel Tan asked: "Did the police find an unexploded bomb, the bag containing the bomb, or something else?", not what you say he asked.
There´s no link, I see: Straw man, again, of course. Thank you very much. Randroide ( talk) 12:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
All you had to do to answer the question was confirm that there was a bomb and confirm that it was inside a bag. Instead you said it was impossible to answer. That's the only reason for my intervention here, to answer a question that you couldn't answer. So try being a bit less aggressive. Southofwatford ( talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the part about Maussili Kalaji really relevant? If he was never charged with any crime, there is no "controversy" just because the police once proposed to take him into custody. Seems to me like pointing the finger at someone who wasn't actually accused of anything. /P 83.176.237.208 ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abc.es/20070321/nacional-nacional/juicio-sigue-centrado-pruebas_200703210640.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abc.es/20070321/nacional-nacional/juicio-sigue-centrado-pruebas_200703210640.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abc.es/20070321/nacional-nacional/juicio-sigue-centrado-pruebas_200703210640.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lne.es/secciones/noticia.jsp?pNumEjemplar=753&pIdSeccion=42&pIdNoticia=237871When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.elpais.com/comunes/2007/11m/index.html
I have lightly corrected the English, which isn't bad, but uses terms unfamilar in English, like 'confident' for 'informer'. Tenses were often a bit muddled, and these have been cleaned up. Chasnor15 ( talk) 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This editor [1] failed to read the notice...
The discussion was lost when this page was moved.
And here we are again. I reverted the deletion of the section.
I think that the section is perfectly NPOV.
Where is the problem with the section, sir?. How can we fix it?. Randroide ( talk) 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Alleged "motives" of editors (being those motives political, philosophical, religious, dietetic, estetic, whatever) are totally irrelevant. Only the faithful sourcing of data counts. Plase note that I have never (and I shall never) mention your "motives".
Uh. Where are those activists?. This article seems a rather empty place. Randroide ( talk) 10:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article's existence is a testimony to your decision, which is documented in the talk pages, to introduce material from the pro conspiracy theories Peones Negros sect in an encyclopaedic format. That is political activism as is your rigorous cherry picking and selective use of sources to take material which supports those political positions. Maybe you don't think that constitutes political activism, but I disagree. When editors decide as you did to deliberately insert political points of view they support into an article then other editors are perfectly entitled to comment on the fact as being very relevant. Southofwatford ( talk) 10:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article's existence is a testimony to my decision of having ALL the sourced facts ans ONLY sourced facts present. Randroide ( talk) 11:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you have made such political and highly selective use of sources only backs up what I say about political motivations, as do you repeated assertions that it is up to other editors to balance your biased editions. No, it isn't and doing so would not produce an NPOV article. That you can find sources supporting your political position doesn't change that. Sourced garbage doesn't cease to be garbage. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Where are the sources and data you are demanding adding that POV tag? Randroide ( talk) 11:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand that question. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Implicitly you are asking por new data to restore the (allegedly lost) NPOV that you are claiming is lost while you add the POV tag. Where are the sources for that data? Randroide ( talk) 11:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If you seriously believe that this is a comprehensive or balanced exploration of the explosives issue then it is hard to believe you have read as widely on the subject as you claim to have done. I am not claiming that NPOV has been lost, I don't believe it ever existed in this section. Incidentally, just to make it clear, I was not the editor who originally placed this tag but I support the decision to do so. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Where are the sources to make it NPOV?. Plase add those sources. Randroide ( talk) 11:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame I have to repeat it again, but I will. I am not taking responsibility for making your very POV material NPOV - apart from anything else that would simply run the risk of reviving a dispute that I have left behind me. I am simply not prepared to spend more months receiving bullying threats and bogus wikipedia warnings on my talk page with no visible result for putting up with that crap. A solution to this page requires the acknowledgement that it is not a political platform for a noisy but sectarian campaign. Your responses today offer little hope on that front. Southofwatford ( talk) 12:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I acknowledge formally that this is not a political platform not a campaign of any kind.
And now, again: Where are the sources to make this article NPOV?. Please add those sources. I am never going to oppose the addition of sourced data. Randroide ( talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Make your own contributions NPOV, I am not your secretary and I refuse to reopen the dispute over every line of content of these articles. You could start by looking outside of the conspiracy theorists axis for information and it would help if your selection from the sources was not just confined to those parts that suit your purposes. Southofwatford ( talk) 12:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing the article, I have come to this opinion, The section Is NOT in violation of NPOV. The article explicity explains in the name that the information is about the Controversies surrounding the bombings. The section simply presents the information as it is, and is from a newspaper. In today's world, notable newspapers are written in a neutral standpoint. Dusti speak and be heard! 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If that sourced account is not in the article, I actually encourage you to please add that sourced info. I have never and I shall never oppose the addition of sourced info.
No, sir. Just the opposite is the truth. Please read:
Randroide ( talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I again have to say, this article does not fail WP:NPOV. If you have a further issue that I cannot resolve, please go to here. If there is something that I can help you with, please let me know here or leave a comment on my talk page. Dusti speak and be heard! 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am addressing those issues:
I do not known what you are talking about. The disputed section uses 9 different sources: From "El Mundo" to "El País", from manufacturers data sheets to the Spanish Congress. Randroide ( talk) 17:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something here, there are numerous references that support almost any selected section. What's violating WP:NPOV here? Dusti speak and be heard! 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::It sounds to me, sir, that you have a
conflict of interest and may not want to edit this article any further. Doing so may result in consequences, possibly leading up to being blocked.
Dusti
speak and be heard! 17:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have striken the comment and am looking at the text. Sorry for any misunderstanding sir. Dusti complain/compliment 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - appreciated. Southofwatford ( talk) 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Southofwatford wrote [3]: "A headline that isn't even backed up by the information contained in the article should not qualify as an acceptable piece of sourced information, regardless of the notability of the source "
Southofwatford wrote [4]: "Prior to the 11-M trial extensive recorded tests were carried out on samples from the explosion sites and on multiple remains of Goma 2 Eco explosive recovered from different sites associated with the bombings"
Well, Southofwatford: You are refusing to source your POV allegations. I asked you two questions [5], and you are refusing to substantiate your assertions. Randroide ( talk) 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You talked and I asked you about tests performed BEFORE the trial. Read your own words:
[6]: "Prior to the 11-M trial extensive recorded tests were carried out on samples from the explosion sites and on multiple remains of Goma 2 Eco explosive recovered from different sites associated with the bombings"
Again: Where are those tests you say were been performed BEFORE the trial. Randroide ( talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
To who it concerns....I have removed the section that is being disupted for NPOV. It is pure speculation and no real information is given to benifit the article. If you diagree with this move, please comment on my talk page. Dusti complain/compliment 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(Bolds added by me) Randroide ( talk) 11:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO, this is a extremely bad edit [8]
Some (properly sourced) Facts listed in the removed section:
Could you please point where´s the "speculation" here?. I only see hard-as-nails facts. Randroide ( talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Per se is not. But that´s not the case here.
Pointing to the fact that ABC, Gara, EFE and Europa Press said that Nitroglycerine traces were found in the trains, that Sánchez Manzano mentioned Nitroglycerine as well, and that the explosive alleguedly used by the allegued islamists (Goma-2 ECO) did NOT contain Nitroglycerine but Nitroglycol are hard as nails FACTS.
Please note that this issue uncovered bu "El Mundo" forced the Spanish Judiciary to find alternative explanations about the presence of Nitroglycerine in the trains. You know: The contamination "speculation", "theory" or whatever way you choose to name it [9] [10] [11] Randroide ( talk) 08:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My preferred sources disagree with your preferred sources. For instance: "El Mundo" maintains that the issue with the explosives has not been solved:
Your preferred sources probably disagree. Fine. Please then add your preferred sources and please move on on this issue.
For the sake of WP:NPOV both sides of the controversy ("yours" and "mine") must be in the article. Randroide ( talk) 11:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is not achieved by you cherry picking sources that you like and then selecting only the information from them that suits you, and it will not be achieved even if I then do the same with other sources. I will not be forced into a sectarian and partial position by this method. Your insistence that both sides be represented is ironic considering your tooth and nail defence of a version that was wholly structured around your version of events - the nitroglycerine issue. The trial, the sentence and the tests on the explosives never existed according to your version - how balanced is that? A balanced, encyclopaedic account will not be possible whilst you insist that it is up to other editors to chase after and clean up your partial accounts and bunkers. That is why, in the end, this section has had to be removed. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
As usual you have opted for imposing a solution rather than seeking consensus when you are not getting your own way. You have ignored the views of editors who disagree with you and no Wikipedia policy that you can quote allows to disregard other opinions in this way. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Southwatford can edit the article without removing it from the mainspace. Moreover: There´s a POV tag to warn the casual reader about the disputed nature of the section. Removing (even temporarily) the section from the mainspace would prevent the casual reader to know about the dispute at all. If he is suddenly so worried about a section POV tagged since 2006, I suggest him to hurry the rewriting process. And yes, he can edit the mainspace as long as he does not delete nor info nor sources Randroide ( talk) 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Outside Opinion. I think the 72-hour removal proposal is a good idea. It's time-limited and can allow editors to work on a small section at a time to get consensus. However, if you do not have consensus within 72 hours, which version will be replaced? (I hope that this question is actually unnecessary!) Renee ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing some tag cleanup on WP. First off, I'll say that I'm not some sort of high WP official, just doing some work. It is my feeling that Southofwatford did not make his case for a NPOV tag, and presented no credible reasoning why it should remain. It is also my feeling that the article is, though perhaps poorly written, certainly not biased in the WP spirit and definition, as has been pointed out in this discussion. I'm removing the tag, any comments can be directed here or to my talk page directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdon ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Jjdon ( talk) 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Forgot to sign, but Bot did it, too.
I think I presented several reasons on why the tag should remain - none of my arguments are addressed by your comment here. If you think my case is insufficient then it would be helpful if you said why you think that. Also, I'm in the process of doing a rewrite which I think will only emphasise the arguments I have already made and given the evident dispute over the content of the existing section it would make sense to leave the tag at least until my alternative version has been presented. Southofwatford ( talk) 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What I have changed in the rewrite of the section on the explosives issue:
The timeline is established – things are put in order so that the narrative of developments is coherent and in context.
Where I can find useful English language sources I have added them – none is really available on the detail of the explosives tests.
Speculative headlines and opinions have been removed but it is still left very clear that there were disagreements and what these disagreements are about.
I’ve added significant missing detail and facts on the results of the explosives tests. There is much more to this than just the question of nitroglycerine.
I don’t feel that it’s acceptable or useful to try and present the issue as just being between rival newspaper accounts – this article is not about the media - so I’ve left in the facts and the newspaper accounts are still sourced without it being presented as just a question of what a newspaper says. This is not just about the viewpoint of El Mundo versus that of El País.
I think the resulting section is factually accurate, NPOV, representative in the selection of sources and concise without leaving important issues unmentioned. It addresses the deficiencies which justified the placing of a POV tag on the original section. Both sections can be viewed together at User:Southofwatford/rewrite.
Southofwatford ( talk) 15:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is no feedback on the rewritten section by May 9th (Friday) I propose to insert it into the article. Southofwatford ( talk) 09:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I had been busy. Congratulations for the excellent job you, Southofwatford. Can I write in your talpage to tweak your text?. Overall, you did a great job. Randroide ( talk) 09:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to propose changes then I suggest you make a copy of my text and place it below mine under a new header. Southofwatford ( talk) 09:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That was just my idea. Thank you for the permission. I shall do it ASAP. Randroide ( talk) 09:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
So how are you getting on with your response on this? Southofwatford ( talk) 16:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Badly, Southofwatford. I am overworked. Thank you for your interest. I am going to paste "your" version as a stopgap. Congratulations for the nice text you wrote, albeit you left out some info.We shall talk things later. .CU Randroide ( talk) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I did a copy edit of the "13th bomb" section per the copy edit tag, and have improved the language. The section needs further improvement by an expert, because what exactly was found by the police is ambiguous. Did the police find an unexploded bomb, the bag containing the bomb, or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Tan ( talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well regardless of the so called doubts expressed by the conspiracy theorists, it is possible to answer these questions. There was an unexploded bomb, and it was inside a sports bag. It's not just a media group invention that supports the idea of the bomb being found amongst possessions being removed from the train, it was accepted during the exhaustive and lengthy trial as a valid piece of evidence. Those who claim it was not on the train use the absence of absolute proof for its presence as their only argument to sustain the belief that it was faked. Each to their own. Obviously, the whole conspiracy theory structure cannot survive if the bomb is accepted as genuine; it's faith against facts. Southofwatford ( talk) 08:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You do not know that, Southofwatford. There is contradictory evidence.
I do not know neither if the the 13th was a fake.
Please, why we do not try to forget about what we believe about the issue and try to focus on what sources said.
And it is a fact that sources voiced different interpretations about the 13th bag.
Thank you for your attentiom. Randroide ( talk) 07:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, even the most wacky sections of the conspiracy theorists don't attempt to deny the existence of the device itself. There is not contradictory evidence for the existence of the bomb, and its entirely misleading to suggest this. There are those who claim it was faked - without providing a single fact to support the allegation, but you can't assert that something could have been faked if at the same time you claim it doesn't exist at all! It's not about beliefs, simply about elementary logic. Southofwatford ( talk) 08:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
A lot of evidence was presented pointing to the 13th being a fake. Just read the linked articles.
Of course you are entitled to regard that evidence as weak, inconclusive or even fabricated. But evidence of the 13th being a fake was presented by major media, that´s a fact. Randroide ( talk) 09:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
So leaving aside the "if you can't prove it was on the train then its obviously a fake" type of evidence, we do now accept that the device actually existed? After all even a fake has to exist. You do accept that don't you? Southofwatford ( talk) 09:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have answered the questions that you said it was impossible to answer Randroide. There was a bomb and it was in a sports bag. That is the answer to the questions posed by Samuel Tan. Floating allegations about fakes doesn't change that very simple reality. Southofwatford ( talk) 11:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Who doubted that, Southofwatford?. Who?. Provide a link, please (if you can, but you can not). And take a look at Straw man. Randroide ( talk) 12:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Samuel Tan asked on this page if there was a bomb and you replied that this was impossible to answer - I don't need to provide a link, its just a few centimetres above this reply. All that I have tried to do here is answer the question that was posed, unambiguously. Southofwatford ( talk) 12:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Samuel Tan asked: "Did the police find an unexploded bomb, the bag containing the bomb, or something else?", not what you say he asked.
There´s no link, I see: Straw man, again, of course. Thank you very much. Randroide ( talk) 12:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
All you had to do to answer the question was confirm that there was a bomb and confirm that it was inside a bag. Instead you said it was impossible to answer. That's the only reason for my intervention here, to answer a question that you couldn't answer. So try being a bit less aggressive. Southofwatford ( talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the part about Maussili Kalaji really relevant? If he was never charged with any crime, there is no "controversy" just because the police once proposed to take him into custody. Seems to me like pointing the finger at someone who wasn't actually accused of anything. /P 83.176.237.208 ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abc.es/20070321/nacional-nacional/juicio-sigue-centrado-pruebas_200703210640.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abc.es/20070321/nacional-nacional/juicio-sigue-centrado-pruebas_200703210640.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abc.es/20070321/nacional-nacional/juicio-sigue-centrado-pruebas_200703210640.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lne.es/secciones/noticia.jsp?pNumEjemplar=753&pIdSeccion=42&pIdNoticia=237871When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)