This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings redirect. 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 redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization: |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Some of the material in this article originally appeared at March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks. See the page history of that article and the archives of that page's talk page for details.
The article claims:
Was this the first election involving a government backing the Iraq war? Is this one government voted out of office out of many, or one out of one so far? Miguel 17:08, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)
Is the Pamplona baker shot dead a pending edit or is there some reason to not include the case here?
Considering how politically important the question of blame seems to be, I think we really really must avoid the passive voice here. Who initially suspected ETA? Who suggested that al-Qaida was responsible? When? DanKeshet 07:40, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
I do not like the title of this page. It should be changed to something other than "Responses to...". "Responses" does not reflect the content of the article. Maybe "Aftermath" is more suitable. dave 21:43, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
As an illustration of the correct use of Google, 7920 catalan pages spell it with an accent, against 580 that spell it without. ;-) Miguel 02:38, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
Based on evidence in Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_attacks (see Usage figures), I believe the name of this article should be changed (yet again) to Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings, to reflect more accurately on how people identify the events. The more vague term attacks is used more correctly in the 9/11 article, because of the nature of those events. -- Cantus 22:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Latest news: three alleged terrorists avoided arrest by blowing up an apartment building. I don't have time to follow this up to the minute, but if you speak Spanish you can try to start with [1] — {[User:Miguel|Miguel]]
I can't believe that neither this article, or the one on the bombing, or the main article on Spain addresses this question. Was it removed because it seemed too POV? I think that would have been a mistake. Even if the discussion stirs people emotions, people still want to read an informed discussion of it. -- Geo Swan 01:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The undeleted paragraphs (see the source!) were out of order in a way that made it look as if the March 13 demonstrations in fact took part on March 12. I encourage you to look at the following diff:
Miguel 20:56, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
By the way, looking at the article again, the last two paragraphs referring to the March 13 demonstrations should be merged into the previous "political" section. They are clearly not "observances". Miguel 21:02, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
I have changed the status of this article to disputed, not because of anything in particular that is happening here, more because of disputes over the content of the main article 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings. There is an editing process going on with this main article that could easily affect the content of this one, and I would like to see all changes made on either article to be done by discussion and consensus. Apart from this 'light' level of protection I have made no changes here. Southofwatford 21:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Randroide 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Immediately?. If I remember well the "Islamist" trail appeared at least 24 hours after the bombings.
And what about the famous Ibarretxe´s line "When Eta attacks, the Basque heart breaks into a thousand pieces" [2]. Not compatible at all with that immediately.
Where is the reference for this immediately, please?.
We have no idea about what kind of explosives went off in the trains, that´s even an official position of part of the Spanish Judiciary "El Mundo" article, The prosecutor for the Madrid 2004 train attacks say that it is impossible to know what kind of dynamite exploded in the trains.
Use of Titadine (used by ETA) was reported
This line must be changed.
Randroide 13:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Incomplete, therefore false. Unsourced, therefore must go out.
Please compare with this line from the main article:
I can not believe this!!!. The (false as a 3 dolars coin) "suicidal terrorist" is still "alive" in this article!!!. Oh my!!!.
To read more about the "suicidal terrorist in the trains" scam.
Randroide 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
+50{{ Fact}} tags. This is a mess, and in an article tagged by User:Southofwatford as a "Controversial issue", i.e., a tag that ask you to Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
But, as Southwatford wrote:
Sure, you made no changes. You simply "protected" a collection of 48 unsourced blocks of text.
Now is time to fix this mess of article. Please come here to have a discussion, reach a consensus and fix this mess, Southofwatford.
Southofwatford 06:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC) I have protected it because otherwise you would simply go in there and use the lack of sources as a pretext for removing that information which does not suit your political stance - as you have done recently with the main article. You have shown in that case that you remove information that can easily be sourced - except of course where it backs up the claims made by the conspiracy theorists. Dispute protection is necessary to prevent partisan abuse of this page. If you want this article to be sourced properly then do it by consensus Randroide, not by imposition. Don't use the word consensus until your actions start to match your words, you are currently actively avoiding consensus on the main article by imposing contested changes and ignoring other users objections.
Randroide 08:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC) OK. Lets fix the text then.
Really?. Then, the only thing you have to do is to source that information. I am not so optimistic as you about the easiness of that task.
It´s not an "excuse", Southofwhatford, it´s a simple "sanitary" measure: Unsourced text must go out.
...OR...
You have a backlog of unanswered questions above, Southofwhatford. Let´s start the work.
Southofwatford 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC) See the talk page on the main article - everything is connected and while you continue to reject consensus and dispute resolution guidelines then you are not entitled to unilaterally edit this page or any other that is under dispute [ [7]].
Randroide 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) This is the talk page for Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings NOT the talk page for 2004 Madrid train bombings.
This is a different article with totally different problems, so, please, lets do something to fix the problems in this article.
You have a lot questions about this article above in this page.
If you have no time now, I suggest (as an emergency temporary measure) to start hiding (not deleting) unsourced statements in the article.
This mess of article is a shame for us, Southofwatford. Please pay some attention to this page.
Southofwatford 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I know which page this is, and I know that it has disputed status - when you respect consensus and dispute resolution procedures we can start to talk about what to do with this page. You are currently openly breaking those guidelines and ignoring other user's objections. Do not demand attention for your point of view if you are not to accept the point of view of others.
Randroide 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Yo are refusing to pay attention to a mess of a page you "protected", Southofwatford.
Please come here to fix this mess or I will have to call for admin attention.
Southofwatford 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I stand by my previous statement, if you are not prepared to respect the disputed nature of this page then go ahead and make your complaint. No threats please, just do it, I am more than prepared to defend my position.
Randroide 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC) O.K. An admin has been approached and spoke about the issue [8].
Now, lets try your approach, Southofwatford. Please come here and help fixing this mess of article.
Randroide, Durova's response to your poisonous personal attack on me makes absolutely no mention of this article and merely states that arbitration is an appropriate solution after months of dispute. Do not misprepresent administrators conclusions. At the moment you are refusing to recognise the dispute, and are refusing to abide by Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. Thats's the key point; solving this dispute by consensus is not my approach - it is Wikipedia policy.
Why you are suddenly so concerned about this article is a mystery, have you only just read it? I raised the issue of this article more than once last summer when I was making proposals for restructuring the main article. Neither you nor any other user responded on that. The solution for this article forms part of the solution to the dispute on the main article, a dispute which your recent unilateral and partisan actions have made worse. Solve one, and you solve the other. Southofwatford 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide, Wikipedia policies are not like a menu in a restaurant - you cannot just pick the parts that suit you at any given time and ignore the rest. You have been acting outside of dispute resolution guidelines for almost 1 month now - what is it that makes you think you can ignore objections or arguments of other users whilst at the same time demanding that they attend to whatever issues you choose to raise? This article forms part of the more general dispute on the Madrid bombings and while you refuse to respect that dispute it is hard to see what we can do to solve the problems of any part of it.
I´ll be careful Randroide 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The small fragments of Wikipedia policies that you highlight in bold are not the only ones you are bound to observe - dispute resolution guidelines do not disappear just because you ignore them. Southofwatford 09:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT Randroide 10:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:DR Southofwatford 10:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There´s no DR procedure going on. Randroide 11:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Really? When did it finish? When a page is disputed then there has to be a process of resolving that dispute. Just because you have freely chosen to ignore attempts to resolve the dispute doesn't mean they don't exist. Southofwatford 11:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
XD XD XD
Sorry, I was unable to avoid LOL.
Read the page again, man, if you are not joking. Randroide 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's good to laugh, but it still doesn't permit you to avoid dispute resolution. It's not your words that I base my judgement on, its your actions over the last month. Southofwatford 11:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide, your latest changes to this page are absolutely contested because of your refusal to deal with the problems of this page via Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. As far as I am concerned you are acting, yet again, as a rogue user attempting to impose your will on those who disagree with you. Southofwatford 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The (former) problems with this page are treated in WP:V. No consensus needed to remove unsourced assertions. In fact, I waited too much (the page was tagged as unsourced since August 2006). You are free to add sources and thus reintroduce blocks of text.
You are the rogue user, Southofwatford: You are the one who added unsourced statements, though you were wise enough to stop. Congratulations. Randroide 16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have submitted a request for arbitration on the dispute affecting this article [ [9]]. Southofwatford 20:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What is totally disputed here? I am not seeing the issue and can't make out what you are talking about above. Can someone explain this to me?-- BirgitteSB 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Some conspirationists considered that the bombing was done by Spanish police and the socialdemocrat party. They elaborated a very sophisticated theory and kept insisting on it for years. It is the same that happens in 9/11.-- Igor21 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Not a word about Spain withdrawing their troops from Iraq as a consequence? On 18 April, 2004 "Spain's new prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has given orders for Spanish troops in Iraq to be brought home in "as short a time as possible". (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3637523.stm and stating so already in March: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3518826.stm Nunamiut ( talk) 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings redirect. 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 redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization: |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Some of the material in this article originally appeared at March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks. See the page history of that article and the archives of that page's talk page for details.
The article claims:
Was this the first election involving a government backing the Iraq war? Is this one government voted out of office out of many, or one out of one so far? Miguel 17:08, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)
Is the Pamplona baker shot dead a pending edit or is there some reason to not include the case here?
Considering how politically important the question of blame seems to be, I think we really really must avoid the passive voice here. Who initially suspected ETA? Who suggested that al-Qaida was responsible? When? DanKeshet 07:40, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
I do not like the title of this page. It should be changed to something other than "Responses to...". "Responses" does not reflect the content of the article. Maybe "Aftermath" is more suitable. dave 21:43, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
As an illustration of the correct use of Google, 7920 catalan pages spell it with an accent, against 580 that spell it without. ;-) Miguel 02:38, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
Based on evidence in Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_attacks (see Usage figures), I believe the name of this article should be changed (yet again) to Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings, to reflect more accurately on how people identify the events. The more vague term attacks is used more correctly in the 9/11 article, because of the nature of those events. -- Cantus 22:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Latest news: three alleged terrorists avoided arrest by blowing up an apartment building. I don't have time to follow this up to the minute, but if you speak Spanish you can try to start with [1] — {[User:Miguel|Miguel]]
I can't believe that neither this article, or the one on the bombing, or the main article on Spain addresses this question. Was it removed because it seemed too POV? I think that would have been a mistake. Even if the discussion stirs people emotions, people still want to read an informed discussion of it. -- Geo Swan 01:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The undeleted paragraphs (see the source!) were out of order in a way that made it look as if the March 13 demonstrations in fact took part on March 12. I encourage you to look at the following diff:
Miguel 20:56, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
By the way, looking at the article again, the last two paragraphs referring to the March 13 demonstrations should be merged into the previous "political" section. They are clearly not "observances". Miguel 21:02, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
I have changed the status of this article to disputed, not because of anything in particular that is happening here, more because of disputes over the content of the main article 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings. There is an editing process going on with this main article that could easily affect the content of this one, and I would like to see all changes made on either article to be done by discussion and consensus. Apart from this 'light' level of protection I have made no changes here. Southofwatford 21:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Randroide 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Immediately?. If I remember well the "Islamist" trail appeared at least 24 hours after the bombings.
And what about the famous Ibarretxe´s line "When Eta attacks, the Basque heart breaks into a thousand pieces" [2]. Not compatible at all with that immediately.
Where is the reference for this immediately, please?.
We have no idea about what kind of explosives went off in the trains, that´s even an official position of part of the Spanish Judiciary "El Mundo" article, The prosecutor for the Madrid 2004 train attacks say that it is impossible to know what kind of dynamite exploded in the trains.
Use of Titadine (used by ETA) was reported
This line must be changed.
Randroide 13:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Incomplete, therefore false. Unsourced, therefore must go out.
Please compare with this line from the main article:
I can not believe this!!!. The (false as a 3 dolars coin) "suicidal terrorist" is still "alive" in this article!!!. Oh my!!!.
To read more about the "suicidal terrorist in the trains" scam.
Randroide 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
+50{{ Fact}} tags. This is a mess, and in an article tagged by User:Southofwatford as a "Controversial issue", i.e., a tag that ask you to Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
But, as Southwatford wrote:
Sure, you made no changes. You simply "protected" a collection of 48 unsourced blocks of text.
Now is time to fix this mess of article. Please come here to have a discussion, reach a consensus and fix this mess, Southofwatford.
Southofwatford 06:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC) I have protected it because otherwise you would simply go in there and use the lack of sources as a pretext for removing that information which does not suit your political stance - as you have done recently with the main article. You have shown in that case that you remove information that can easily be sourced - except of course where it backs up the claims made by the conspiracy theorists. Dispute protection is necessary to prevent partisan abuse of this page. If you want this article to be sourced properly then do it by consensus Randroide, not by imposition. Don't use the word consensus until your actions start to match your words, you are currently actively avoiding consensus on the main article by imposing contested changes and ignoring other users objections.
Randroide 08:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC) OK. Lets fix the text then.
Really?. Then, the only thing you have to do is to source that information. I am not so optimistic as you about the easiness of that task.
It´s not an "excuse", Southofwhatford, it´s a simple "sanitary" measure: Unsourced text must go out.
...OR...
You have a backlog of unanswered questions above, Southofwhatford. Let´s start the work.
Southofwatford 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC) See the talk page on the main article - everything is connected and while you continue to reject consensus and dispute resolution guidelines then you are not entitled to unilaterally edit this page or any other that is under dispute [ [7]].
Randroide 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) This is the talk page for Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings NOT the talk page for 2004 Madrid train bombings.
This is a different article with totally different problems, so, please, lets do something to fix the problems in this article.
You have a lot questions about this article above in this page.
If you have no time now, I suggest (as an emergency temporary measure) to start hiding (not deleting) unsourced statements in the article.
This mess of article is a shame for us, Southofwatford. Please pay some attention to this page.
Southofwatford 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I know which page this is, and I know that it has disputed status - when you respect consensus and dispute resolution procedures we can start to talk about what to do with this page. You are currently openly breaking those guidelines and ignoring other user's objections. Do not demand attention for your point of view if you are not to accept the point of view of others.
Randroide 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Yo are refusing to pay attention to a mess of a page you "protected", Southofwatford.
Please come here to fix this mess or I will have to call for admin attention.
Southofwatford 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I stand by my previous statement, if you are not prepared to respect the disputed nature of this page then go ahead and make your complaint. No threats please, just do it, I am more than prepared to defend my position.
Randroide 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC) O.K. An admin has been approached and spoke about the issue [8].
Now, lets try your approach, Southofwatford. Please come here and help fixing this mess of article.
Randroide, Durova's response to your poisonous personal attack on me makes absolutely no mention of this article and merely states that arbitration is an appropriate solution after months of dispute. Do not misprepresent administrators conclusions. At the moment you are refusing to recognise the dispute, and are refusing to abide by Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. Thats's the key point; solving this dispute by consensus is not my approach - it is Wikipedia policy.
Why you are suddenly so concerned about this article is a mystery, have you only just read it? I raised the issue of this article more than once last summer when I was making proposals for restructuring the main article. Neither you nor any other user responded on that. The solution for this article forms part of the solution to the dispute on the main article, a dispute which your recent unilateral and partisan actions have made worse. Solve one, and you solve the other. Southofwatford 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide, Wikipedia policies are not like a menu in a restaurant - you cannot just pick the parts that suit you at any given time and ignore the rest. You have been acting outside of dispute resolution guidelines for almost 1 month now - what is it that makes you think you can ignore objections or arguments of other users whilst at the same time demanding that they attend to whatever issues you choose to raise? This article forms part of the more general dispute on the Madrid bombings and while you refuse to respect that dispute it is hard to see what we can do to solve the problems of any part of it.
I´ll be careful Randroide 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The small fragments of Wikipedia policies that you highlight in bold are not the only ones you are bound to observe - dispute resolution guidelines do not disappear just because you ignore them. Southofwatford 09:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT Randroide 10:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:DR Southofwatford 10:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There´s no DR procedure going on. Randroide 11:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Really? When did it finish? When a page is disputed then there has to be a process of resolving that dispute. Just because you have freely chosen to ignore attempts to resolve the dispute doesn't mean they don't exist. Southofwatford 11:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
XD XD XD
Sorry, I was unable to avoid LOL.
Read the page again, man, if you are not joking. Randroide 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's good to laugh, but it still doesn't permit you to avoid dispute resolution. It's not your words that I base my judgement on, its your actions over the last month. Southofwatford 11:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide, your latest changes to this page are absolutely contested because of your refusal to deal with the problems of this page via Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. As far as I am concerned you are acting, yet again, as a rogue user attempting to impose your will on those who disagree with you. Southofwatford 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The (former) problems with this page are treated in WP:V. No consensus needed to remove unsourced assertions. In fact, I waited too much (the page was tagged as unsourced since August 2006). You are free to add sources and thus reintroduce blocks of text.
You are the rogue user, Southofwatford: You are the one who added unsourced statements, though you were wise enough to stop. Congratulations. Randroide 16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have submitted a request for arbitration on the dispute affecting this article [ [9]]. Southofwatford 20:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What is totally disputed here? I am not seeing the issue and can't make out what you are talking about above. Can someone explain this to me?-- BirgitteSB 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Some conspirationists considered that the bombing was done by Spanish police and the socialdemocrat party. They elaborated a very sophisticated theory and kept insisting on it for years. It is the same that happens in 9/11.-- Igor21 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Not a word about Spain withdrawing their troops from Iraq as a consequence? On 18 April, 2004 "Spain's new prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has given orders for Spanish troops in Iraq to be brought home in "as short a time as possible". (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3637523.stm and stating so already in March: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3518826.stm Nunamiut ( talk) 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)