Talk:Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings

http://www.elpais.com/comunes/2007/11m/index.html

English corrections

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)

Thank you very much, Chasnor15. I am the main author of this page and your remarks about my english put a smile on my face :-) Randroide (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

POV section

This editor [1] failed to read the notice...

Please see the discussion on the talk page.

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)

If you think it's NPOV, remove the tag. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was forbidden for doing that. In 2006 this page was a heated "battleground" and one of the fellow wikipedists who was my "adversary" back then placed that POV notice. That is the reason I abstained from removing the notice. Randroide (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I removed the POV tag [2]. If someone disagrees with the removal, please talk things out in this section Randroide (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I regard this section as being completely POV, based as it is on a highly selective use of pro-conspiracy theory material. It's out of date, highly contested and unbalanced material. Obviously, those whose intention it is to insert as much pro-conspiracy theory material as possible into the article regard it as NPOV. THe tag was there for a very good reason. Southofwatford (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is sourced and well sourced. If you say it is POV you mean that only one interpretation of the facts is present. Please add relevant material to add the (alleged) other interpretation of the facts and thus make it NPOV. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still not my responsibility to convert POV contributions by other editors into NPOV material. Experience tells me that with your contributions the only definition of NPOV you accept is one that places unfounded conspiracy theory allegations on a par with known facts about the bombings. This article represents nothing more than the efforts of supporters of a small political sect to (ab)use Wikipedia as a platform for their conspiracy theories. Making it NPOV may in reality be impossible as it such an objective is incompatible with the existence of politically motivated bunkers. Southofwatford (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Making it NPOV may in reality be impossible

Fine. Your words. Then, what are you doing in this page?. Please come here with sources to make the section NPOV. What you (very lightly) call "unfounded conspiracy theory allegations" are well sourced POV statements like "this source said this and that source said that". Plase come here with the equally well sourced facts that (allegedly) would make the section NPOV. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What I am doing on this page is making sure that other points of view get represented and that political activists do not take advantage of other editor's lack of background knowledge about the issues to claim that the section is in reality NPOV - a gross misrepresentation. You are the one who insisted on using Wikipedia as a platform for the views of the Peones Negros, not me. I am not even going to try to balance material that I see as being politically motivated garbage. The tag should stay, the passage of time alone does not justify its removal.Southofwatford (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What I am doing on this page is making sure that other points of view get represented

I never oppose that. NEVER, as long as there is correct sourcing. Please provide relevant diffs if you think that what I am saying is not the complete, total truth.

I am not even going to try to balance material

Fine. Then the discussion is over. If you change your mind please return here with the (theoretical) sources that would (allegedly) restore the (allegedly) lost NPOV. Have a nice day, sir. Randroide (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well, the tag must go back. It's clear there is no agreement on its removal. Even you are unable to sustain the argument that the page is genuinely NPOV - you just seem to think it is always someone else's responsibility to make it so. Southofwatford (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There´s neither agreement on its addition. You are unwilling to explain why the section is POV. Please, tell us: Why the section is POV?. Randroide (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I already have, I have no intention of recycling the debate of over 12 months ago. If the NPOV nature of the page is disputed it is logical that the tag should stay. Southofwatford (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary. You reintroduce the "disputed" tag but refuse to enter the dispute. Well, I suppose both of us have better things to do. Let´s leave things that (sorry) way until another editor stumbles with that POV tag and this process starts again. We shall meet again then, Southofwatford. Cherio!. Randroide (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in the article to justify removal of a tag. I have explained my reasons, it is not NPOV to balance material introduced for political motives with other material giving a different political point of view - even though I could easily do so. That is not what Wikipedia is about. In reality, most of this article and the main article should be tagged until political activists cease to use it as a platform. Southofwatford (talk) 10:38, 16 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".

until political activists cease to use it as a platform

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)

A solution to this page requires the acknowledgement that it is not a political platform for a noisy but sectarian campaign

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)

3rd Opinion

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)

Well I have to admit I find this a bit baffling. The assertion that a notable newspaper is automatically a neutral newspaper simply does stand up to examination, I could find numerous examples showing that not to be the case. The two terms have very different meanings. In this specific case to assert that El Mundo is neutral in its reporting of the Madrid bombings is not just unsustainable, it could hardly be further away from reality. It's important perhaps to distinguish between newspapers that report from a distance on events, and those that are active participants in making the news. El Mundo with 11-M falls very clearly into the latter category. I could construct a completely different account of this issue from equally notable sources that would pass your NPOV test whilst refuting almost everything that is currently in the article. However, having multiple accounts on the same issue is against Wikipedia policies and I'm not going to do it. Oh well, I guess something has to be done to ensure that the overall quality of Wikipedia articles does not get too high, but the passage of time alone will never convert POV material into NPOV material. Southofwatford (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Southofwatford wrote: I could construct a completely different account of this issue from equally notable sources that would pass your NPOV test whilst refuting almost everything that is currently in the article

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.

Southofwatford wrote: having multiple accounts on the same issue is against Wikipedia policies

No, sir. Just the opposite is the truth. Please read:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. WP:NPOV.

Randroide (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to content forking, not to having different versions represented in the same article. However, I am delighted you have highlighted the phrase where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly because that is precisely what has not been done in this section and in several others related to this topic. Sourcing almost entirely from one biased source cannot possibly comply with NPOV requirements and, I repeat yet again, it is not my responsibility to do for other editors what they should have done in the first place. Your amazing ability to quote Wikipedia policies at others whilst ignoring them in your own contributions is undiminished. Southofwatford (talk) 17:13, 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)

You haven't addressed any of the issues I raised my reply. Southofwatford (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am addressing those issues:

Southofwatford: "Sourcing almost entirely from one biased source cannot possibly comply with NPOV requiremen"

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)

The whole existence of this section depends on the nitroglycerine issue and the suggestion that this somehow demonstrates that another explosive was used in the train bombings. 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. Only one sample from the explosion sites showed any trace of nitroglycerine, some of the samples of Goma 2 Eco tested also revealed traces of nitroglycerine. I would have thought that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly means that such information should be reflected in a section which purports to deal with this issue, especially as it is far more recent than anything currently in the section itself and can clearly be regarded as far more substantial and definitive than the opinion of a biased newspaper editor. Also I have reservations, quite strong reservations, about the inclusion of newspaper headlines which make claims that are not justified even by the content of the article which they come from. It smacks of sensationalism. That's the start of what is wrong with this section. Southofwatford (talk) 17:35, 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)

That's a serious accusation - please explain it. I am not currently editing this article anyway. I think it is reasonable to expect the points I am making to be addressed. Southofwatford (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

When I say that you have a Conflict of Interest, I mean that you may be biased about certain point, section, or whole article. For example, you work in a radio station and you edit an article about the radio station you work at....see what I mean? Looking in the article history, you have edited the article once. The points you have addressed (saying a part of the article violated WP:NPOV) have been addressed, and in my opinion, the article is not in violation. Also, if I may request so, please begin using the edit summary below. It helps users doing RC patroll and also helps me see what has been done to the article. Thanks and happy editing! Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand fully, and have read, the policy on conflict of interest which you linked to. I just fail to see which part of it applies to me and you didn't help on that. You should not make that kind of insinuation unless you have very solid grounds to back it up. I pointed to specific and major omissions and problems with this section - none of that has been addressed. If you don't want to deal with those issues that's fine - everyone here is free to do that - but it doesn't justify making an unsubstantiated accusation of conflict of interest. The only edit I have made recently to this page was to restore the tag. If you prefer I will change it for one that marks the section in question as disputed - nobody who reads this page is going to deny that one. Southofwatford (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read correctly, sir, you would have noticed that I said it sounds like, ok? I'm not accusing you have having one, just pointing it out. Now, about this section your saying is in violation of having a neutral point of view, could you copy and paste it below so I can look at it closer? Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're not making the accusation, then don't make the suggestion. Any reasonable person reading what you wrote would reach the conclusion that you think I have a conflict of interest, otherwise why raise the issue at all? To be frank, it hasn't done much to help the discussion. The section I am objecting to is the one that begins with the heading Questions over the type of explosive used in the bombs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southofwatford (talk • contribs) 18:13, 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)

Now, I can see where you are coming from sir, with speculation from one newpaper. However, if you look at their article El Mundo, they are the second largest newpaper in Spain. If you would like, I can tag the specific section for additional references, or, if agreeable, we can take out the section, because it is pure speculation. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well my position is that it cannot stay as it is without being tagged as unsatisfactory - we can debate about which tag is most appropriate . The issue is not the amount of copies that El Mundo sells, nor do I think it is one of simply balancing their opinion with that of a newspaper that doesn't share it. At some point there has to be an evaluation of the material available and about what is reasonable to include. 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. The structure of the section is currently built almost completely around El Mundo's presentation of the issue, that in itself precludes a reasonable, balanced, treatment of the issue. If it's possible to reach agreement on that treatment then I have never been in favour of deletion, unfortunately getting that agreement so far has not been possible. Southofwatford (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor for completley removing the specific section, as it is pure speculation, no definate information is given. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well giving a balanced NPOV treatment to the issues involved would effectively mean starting from scratch again anyway, so I won't stand in your way. Southofwatford (talk) 19:23, 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 "

• Question 1: Please, which article are you talking about?. Please: Be specific.

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"

• Question 2: Could you please link to those tests or to reports of the results of these tests?. AFAIK those tests do not exist Randroide (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

I don't think going to have dinner and watching a bit of TV counts as 'refusing to source your POV allegations', I think most reasonable people would not expect me to be permanently beside my laptop - I think I am right in saying that not even Randroide is entitled to impose arbitrary time limits on his questions.

So here we go. Question 1 - the assertion El explosivo que estalló el 11-M era distinto del que tenían los islamistas (the explosive which exploded on the 11-M was different from that possessed by the Islamists) from El Mundo is not backed up either by the associated article or by any other article ever published by the pro-conspiracy theory media. When I say backed up I mean with facts, a clarification that is normally not necessary but which in this situation marks the important difference between speculation and information.

Question 2 - The tests I am referring to are those ordered by the judge presiding the trial - don't tell me that you haven't heard about them? The tests were exhaustive and carried out with the participation of representatives for the defence and of parties to the prosecution. The results of those tests are publicly available. They were filmed to avoid the almost inevitable accusations from interested parties that there was manipulation. Several days of the trial were then dedicated to examination of the results of those tests. The fact that nothing at all, not a single word, appears here about the most complete examination of the explosives used in the bombs carried out speaks volumes about the claim that this section is adequate or NPOV. It is not just a minor omission or a detail, it is the exclusion of the most significant and solid information available to us - like it or not.

Finally, I'd better make clear that I intend to sleep tonight, just in case anyone wants to accuse me of not responding to questions that they pose at 3 in the morning. Southofwatford (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Question 1: Vide infra.

• Question 2, again: Southofwatford, you tried to answer me with this line:

The tests I am referring to are those ordered by the judge presiding the trial - don't tell me that you haven't heard about them?

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)

The judge ordered the tests to be carried out before the trial began - that the tests didn't finish before the trial was underway is hardly a big deal nor does it invalidate I have said about them. They did conclude before the trial finished and cannot simply be ignored in preference to earlier speculative reports. There were also tests carried out following the bombings - testimony exists to that effect - but the bomb disposal officers responsible were not surprisingly unaware that a political campaign would subsequently be organised to try and discredit their work, and so didn't take this possibility into account when carrying out the tests. Southofwatford (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In this section I am not concerned about the tests ordered by the judge.

"There were also tests carried out following the bombings - testimony exists to that effect"

Can you please source that assertion?. Randroide (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The bomb disposal expert who carried out the tests following the bombings - http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/historico-28-05-2007/abc/Nacional/la-tedax-que-analizo-los-focos-del-11-m-asegura-que-el-explosivo-utilizado-era-una-dinamita_1633385630103.html

Southofwatford (talk) 10:49, 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)

Per Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Preserve_information I undid your edit. Please note that what you called "speculation" is what "El Mundo" called "research". Vide infra about how "El Mundo" maintains that the issue with the explosives is not clear at all, or just read [7]

Respecto a los explosivos, la sentencia considera acreditado que "todos o gran parte" de los que estallaron en los trenes eran Goma 2 ECO o Goma 2 EC, procedentes de Mina Conchita. Aunque la sentencia incluye una extraña relación de componentes y porcentajes, no es posible desde el punto de vista científico llegar a esta conclusión, porque ocho peritos coincidían en sus informes en que la cantidad de explosivo analizada era insuficiente para establecer la composición cuantitativa del que estalló en los trenes. La aparición de nitroglicerina en el polvo de extintor y de DNT en los restos de los focos indica que pudo emplearse también otro tipo de dinamita. Pero los jueces infieren que se usó Goma 2 ECO porque éste fue el explosivo hallado en Leganés, en la Kangoo y en la mochila de Vallecas.

(Bolds added by me) Randroide (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Speculation"

IMO, this is a extremely bad edit [8]

Some (properly sourced) Facts listed in the removed section:

• The second Spanish newspaper said that the explosive that went off in the trains was not the same kind of explosive that the allegued islamists alleguedly had.

• The chief of the bomb disposal team contradicted himself.

• ABC (newspaper) printed info supporting the presence of Nitroglycerine in the trains.

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 have answered the first point above, a sensationalist headline is not a fact - ever. The presence of nitroglycerine is documented properly (i.e. proportionately without sensationalism) in the test results from the trial, which are more recent and much more factual than all the speculative sources cited here. The chief of the bomb disposal squad was not the person responsible for determining the explosive or for carrying out the tests - there is much detailed testimony on this issue from the trial, which you would think never happened according to the account we had in this article. Southofwatford (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be on at 12PM my time today. NOw its 1AM Dusti^{complain/compliment} 05:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

a sensationalist headline is not a fact - ever

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)

Hard as nails facts - nitroglycerine was found in one, and only one, of the samples taken from the trains. It's presence was also detected in several samples of Goma 2 ECO recovered from sites associated with the bombings. That is the result of the exhaustive tests carried out on the samples from the explosion sites and those facts simply do not support the assertion of another explosive being used. What we can say with absolute certainty is that no other explosive than Goma 2 ECO has been positively identified anywhere in connection with the train bombings. Play with the selective use of earlier, outdated sources as much as you like, but that is a conclusion that survives examination. Southofwatford (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources, please. Editors´ say so is not enough. We are talking about what to do with a section backed with 13 sources.Randroide (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not my say so Randroide, it's the results of the tests carried out for the trial - you should read them. No other explosive apart from Goma 2 ECO has been identified in any site connected to the bombings. You can't just ignore the most solid scientific evidence just because you prefer the more imaginative speculation of other, outdated sources. Southofwatford (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Where can I see the result of those tests, please?. Randroide (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here.

http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2007/05/16/01_antecedentes_metodologia_analisis.pdf

http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2007/05/16/02_conclusiones_peritos.pdf

http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2007/05/16/03_conclusiones_guardia_civil.pdf

http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2007/05/16/04_conclusiones_policia.pdf

Southofwatford (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sir. Unfortunately my browser (Firefox) crashes every time I try to open those PDFs. Anyway, why do not you add those sources to the section?. Those PDFs provide highly valuable information to the article. Randroide (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My browser is Firefox too and doesn't crash with these files. These are not just additional sources to add to a poorly structured, biased section. These contain the most definitive data available on the question of the explosives used. They confirm that the only explosive positively identified in connection with the bombings is Goma 2 ECO. Southofwatford (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations for your browser being able to open those PDFs. Mine is not, and it has been updated. I suspect that my 2001 manufactured laptop has something to do with this.

The point is not what happened sir, but what sources said it happened. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. I suggest you (again) to read WP:VERIFY:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

Randroide (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That does not become an excuse for adding speculative information or data which has subsequently been superceded or which is just plain wrong. I have no problem in finding sources that are completely wrong about the number of victims of the bombings. Using your criteria I can replace the correct figure with the wrong one. I could use it as a pretext for inserting a whole mass of information which I know to be wrong. I'm not going to, I regard that as a disservice to the objectives of Wikipedia. Not all information available on the explosives issue is equivalent, and a speculative headline making an unsubstantiated assertion cannot be regarded in the same light as scientific analysis of explosives just because a single editor prefers the speculation. Southofwatford (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• speculative information...according with your preferred sources.

• data which has subsequently been superceded...according with your preferred sources.

• just plain wrong...according with your preferred sources.

• Not all information available on the explosives issue is equivalent. According with WP:VERIFY it is, as long as it is properly sourced.

My preferred sources disagree with your preferred sources. For instance: "El Mundo" maintains that the issue with the explosives has not been solved:

Respecto a los explosivos, la sentencia considera acreditado que "todos o gran parte" de los que estallaron en los trenes eran Goma 2 ECO o Goma 2 EC, procedentes de Mina Conchita. Aunque la sentencia incluye una extraña relación de componentes y porcentajes, no es posible desde el punto de vista científico llegar a esta conclusión, porque ocho peritos coincidían en sus informes en que la cantidad de explosivo analizada era insuficiente para establecer la composición cuantitativa del que estalló en los trenes. La aparición de nitroglicerina en el polvo de extintor y de DNT en los restos de los focos indica que pudo emplearse también otro tipo de dinamita. Pero los jueces infieren que se usó Goma 2 ECO porque éste fue el explosivo hallado en Leganés, en la Kangoo y en la mochila de Vallecas.[12]

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)

"The Randroide Solution"

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)

No consensus was asked to remove a section backed by 13 sources. Besides, that consensus, if reached, would be against Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Preserve_information. Wikipedia policies override editor´s possible consesuses.

I added the PDFs you kindly provided and the data extracted from those PDFs (trusting on your description on the content, because I am unable to open those PDFs in this computer).

Are you happy now about the section not being built on "cherrypicking"?. Do you want to add more "cherrys", sir? (i.e., do you think that more sources are needed to restore the -alleguedly- lost NPOV?). Randroide (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ok Randroide, whilst you act in this way towards other editors and refuse all possibility of a consensual solution the tag goes back. I'm not going to waste time with someone who refuses to respect other editors opinions. Southofwatford (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. The section had a defect: It was outdated. I think I added the crux of the developments on this issue happened during 2007. Please check the current text and feel free to add new sourced info. Randroide (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if both of you would follow WP:Civil when disagreeing here. Randroide, in the link you provided, both in the edit summary and above WP:EP#Preserve Information, it specifically states that rewriting is an option. To satisfy all users here, try to rewrite it if possible. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to maintain civility when the other editor simply ignores opinions and debate on the talk page to impose on those who disagree with him a solution that suits him. This is not the first time that Randroide has adopted this approach. However, I propose to rewrite the still disputed section without rejecting any of the sources that are currently being used in a way which I believe to be NPOV. It will be substantially different from the current account and I think it will help more than anything else to identify the areas of disagreement. I will not impose this solution on other editors, I will present it here for discusssion first - assuming that other editors are prepared to treat the effort with the respect that such a effort deserves. Southofwatford (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• To Dustihowe: Sorry, sir, but it would be futile to "rewrite" what I found entirely satisfactory. I invite other editors to "rewrite" the text without loosing data if they found the section unsatisfactory.

• To Southofwatford: Please, go ahead with the rewriting. Randroide (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You may find the section satisfactory, but unfortunatley to others users it isn't. Please remember that you do not own an article and anyone can edit it. I suggest that if Southofwatford is agreeing to rewrite the article, I can remove it from the article for the time being and place it in his userspace.

• Those who agree

1. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Southofwatford (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Those who disagree

Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Preserve_information, and WP policies override editors´choices. There´s no need to remove whilst the article is rewritten. Moreover: That would be against WP policies. Randroide (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What policy? In the same policy that you stated, it also says exceptions include irrelevency. I can provide links for articles that were deleted due to speculation. I say that you should agree to allow me to move the section to Southofwatford's userspace, allow him to rewrite it and present it here for consensus. This will remove speculation. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The contents are relevant because those contents were the crux of a (properly sourced) heated debate in the Spanish media. Secondary sources decide about relevancy, not editors´ preferences. You can copy the section to wherever place you want. There´s no need at all to delete what you call "speculation", because a proper source presented those contents as "research". Randroide (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not deleting it, I am temporarily removing the section from the article to allow Southofwatford to edit it. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:03, 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)

I am asking for you to compromise but you are refusing. The compromise is for Southofwatford to edit the section. In order for him to effectivley edit it, I need to remove it, this allows for any reader to read the article and it not have irrelevent information speculational information. Please compromise here. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If it helps lets put a time limit on it - if I haven't produced a rewrite within 48 hours max then the original section can be restored. Southofwatford (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you agree to that? Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can not, sir, and it is NOT a personal issue. AFAIK is against WP Policies to remove well sourced relevant information. Could you please point me to the policy that suggest that information tagged as POV should be temporarily removed?. In mi ignorance I know nothing about that WP Policy. Moreover: I think that 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombingss seriously POV, but I would not dare to ask for a temporary removal of the article to talk things out. Randroide (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreover: Please take a look at what happened last time Southofwatford and me get involved in a "consensused" text...[[13]] Randroide (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to go to work. I shall be here in 3-4 hours. CU!. Randroide (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this situation is different because I am the meditator...If you are afraid that that text will be forever lost and I'm just going to hit delete, realize that (A) I am not going to do that and (B) IF something does happen, the text will be in the article history and you can restore it. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And I give a commitment to agreeing restoral if I don't deliver within 48 hours, whilst asking for an equivalent commitment that if I do deliver there will be proper consideration given to my work. You cannot assume a veto on everything that happens on these pages Randroide, you are one editor amongst many. Southofwatford (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but condoning a removal (even a temporary one) of sourced information gives me the cramps. I asked for a RfC. If the feedback for the removal proposition is positive, I pledge to accept the concept, for 72 hours, not just 48. Randroide (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Controversies_about_the_2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Questions_over_the_type_of_explosive_used_in_the_bombs be temporarily removed while POV issues are treated?

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)

Sigh. Go ahead, Southofwatford. I think it´s a bad idea, but, well, after all it´s only 72 hours offline. Choose the 72 hours more convenient for you. Drop a line if you need help with the references. A line saying "Section being rewritten" should be better than NOTHING, but this point is up to you. Enjoy the weekend!. Randroide (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not go ahead with the removal until I am able to devote full attention to the rewrite, probably tomorrow and Tuesday. Southofwatford (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whenever is convenient for you, Southofwatford. BTW: There are several sources citing explosives at 2004 Madrid train bombings. It is a must to integrate all the stuff about the explosives in the section (because, yes, it is a controversial issue) Randroide (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This controversy seems to be over, need to remove RfC tag. PR^talk 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag Cleanup

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)

Rewrite of Disputed Section

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)

Copy edit on July 2008

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)

Thank you very much for your work. I wrote that text, so it is very instructive for me to study your improvements.

Unfortunately the issue is so murky (that´s the rationale for the "Controversies" moniker) that it is impossible to answer your questions.

To make a long history short: PRISA media supported "the 13th" being in the trains, no doubt about it. El Mundo (Spain) and the COPE radio station voiced strong doubts about the origin of the 13th.

Cheers Randroide (talk) 17:15, 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)

"...it is possible to answer these questions. There was an unexploded bomb, and it was inside a sports bag"

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)

There are those who claim it was faked - without providing a single fact

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)

Sigh. Déja vu again at this page. Could you please point to a valid source stating that the 13th bag never existed?. A single one, please. Why do you answer questions nobody asked, Southofwatford?. Enjoy the summer. Randroide (talk) 11:44, 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)

You wrote: "we do now accept that the device actually existed?"

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)

Samuel Tan never asked if there was a bomb and if it was inside a bag. I never touched that subject, due to the simple reason that no source never ever did it. I have nothing to confirm, due to the fact that I am not a source. Have a nice day. Randroide (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kalaji relevance?

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010090143/http://www.esisc.org/Attentats%20de%20Madrid.pdf to http://www.esisc.org/Attentats%20de%20Madrid.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070210110514/http://www.libertaddigital.com:80/php3/noticia.php3?cpn=1276217596 to http://www.libertaddigital.com/php3/noticia.php3?cpn=1276217596
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928040837/http://www.larepublica.es/article.php3?id_article=382 to http://www.larepublica.es/article.php3?id_article=382

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.abc.es/20070321/nacional-nacional/juicio-sigue-centrado-pruebas_200703210640.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012145604/http://tvnz.co.nz:80/view/news_budget_story_skin/419295 to http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_budget_story_skin/419295
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.abc.es/20070321/nacional-nacional/juicio-sigue-centrado-pruebas_200703210640.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.abc.es/20070321/nacional-nacional/juicio-sigue-centrado-pruebas_200703210640.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606003054/http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2004/0331europe_gordon.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2004/0331europe_gordon.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20040202065449/http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-10/31chomsky.cfm to http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-10/31chomsky.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nordspreng.no/dokumenter/datablad/HMS-datablad%2Cnorskversjon_Goma2ECO_.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lne.es/secciones/noticia.jsp?pNumEjemplar=753&pIdSeccion=42&pIdNoticia=237871
• Added archive https://archive.is/20051018200531/http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/documentos/195.asp to http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/documentos/195.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314165742/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F11%2F23%2F1457202 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F11%2F23%2F1457202
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331115831/http://www.elpais.com/elpaismedia/ultimahora/media/200710/31/espana/20071031elpepunac_1_Pes_PDF.doc to http://www.elpais.com/elpaismedia/ultimahora/media/200710/31/espana/20071031elpepunac_1_Pes_PDF.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821142826/http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpporopi/20060509elpepiopi_7/Tes/Noticia/bomba to http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpporopi/20060509elpepiopi_7/Tes/Noticia/bomba

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110015106/http://www.cityfmradio.com/audiodb/2006/claves/sanchezmanzano120707.mp3 to http://www.cityfmradio.com/audiodb/2006/claves/sanchezmanzano120707.mp3

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)