Jump to content

Talk:2006 Madrid–Barajas Airport bombing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aftermath...

[edit]

"Several silent concentrations took place across Spain on 31 December 2006" Silent concentrations - what's that mean? Demonstrations? Peter1968 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "concentraciones silenciosas" is a spanish term for a special kind of demonstration (usually against ETA) where everyone is silent. Shouting and chanting is discouraged in that demonstrations, which usually finish in applause. The silent nature of the demonstration is supposed to attract demonstrator who dislike the usual shouting and chanting in usual demonstrations. Randroide 18:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein

[edit]

Was this the thing which some silly media outlets were linking to Saddam Hussein's assasination? The work of ETA? Nil Einne 19:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it is the work of ETA. The spanish Interior Affairs chief (Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba) was unequivocal about the autorship. Randroide 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think some people saw that the two things happened on the same day, and assumed the bomb was in protest of Saddam's execution, without thinking for a single second. Codu (t)⁄(c) •  02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spanish interior affairs was as unequivocal about the eta in the madrid bombing. So that doesn't seem to proof much. My suggestion is we wont find out why it happened untill a thorough analyses of the spanish national (security) politics is done. I think a single telephone claim is a very lousy proof to build a picture of the event. Or to blame the ETA. The eta is represented in european parliament, and hasn't opted for unaimed attacks in like a decade (if ever). So perhaps it is a possibility but for now it is a remote one. It is quitte as possible that it is a fake indication to distract the public of the spanish governmental involvement in the 2004 event.(That was also loosely implieing saddam (preparing the 'coalition') btw.) The article should contain the opinions of eta eu-politicians (since i am not digging into it i wonder if we will ever know:O)80.57.243.100 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Madrid train bombings

[edit]

...and others asked about who committed the islamist disputed [[2004 Madrid train bombings... The autorship of 2004 Madrid train bombings is under dispute. To assert flatly that it was an "islamist" attack is POV.Randroide 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the word "disputed" itself is POV, as it gives unfair weight to a minority view. I would suggest rephrasing the sentence to read "... who commited the 2004 Madrid train..." Regards, Asteriontalk 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of the word "disputed" is the simple recognition of a fact of reality: The autorship is disputed. I see no POV at all in the recognition of a fact.
Significant minorities are to be represented. And the minority who thinks that the background to the 2004 bombings is not clear is a VERY significant minority. Just for starters: The second spanish newspaper and the second spanish political party. A NPOV wording could be "...alleguedly islamist but disputed 2004 madrid train bombings".Randroide 18:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the evidence shows that ETA had nothing to do with these attacks. Codu (t)⁄(c) •  02:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is inconclusive. We do not even know which explosive went off in the trains, and the "islamist" explanation is weaker and weaker as new data appears. Autorship is an open case.
Codu wrote: ...evidence shows that ETA had nothing to do with these attacks...
Epistemology 101: You can not prove a negative. Only who did the 2004 train bombing could be proved. It is impossible to prove who did NOT it.Randroide 08:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have issues with your reasoning, including that the islamist explanation is 'weaker and weaker'. This is not true. In fact, and quite sadly, the ETA theory is becoming one of those conspiracy theories a la Roswell. Only one newspaper in Spain (El Mundo, run by a director who has had issues with a past socialist government, let's not forget that shall we?) questions the authorship of the attack (and lately hasn't been providing much info on it since the trouble with the specialists (or peritos) exploded in their hands), and even the Popular Party has strong internal divisions about the subject, and they are the only ones who have rather ambiguously declared that they wanna know 'everything' about the attack.
I believe the sentence was fine originally. and others asked about who committed the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Simple, clear yet illustrating what a 'significant minority', as you put it, did. Trying to insert extra words to give more weight to a determined POV is clearly POV. The original sentence is perfectly neutral in this sense. The interested reader that wishes to learn more about why people would be questioning the authorship of those attacks can go to the corresponding 2004 Madrid train bombs article with the wiki link provided. Let's not unduly complicate things, okay? :) Raystorm 15:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to Raystorm

[edit]

Randroide 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC) O.K., the current text (i.e. ...and others asked about who committed the 2004 Madrid train bombings.) is good enough for me.[reply]

Raystorm wrote: Sorry, but I have issues with your reasoning, including that the islamist explanation is 'weaker and weaker'. This is not true. In fact, and quite sadly, the ETA theory is becoming one of those conspiracy theories a la Roswell

First class strawman, Raystorm.

  • Could you please point to the diff where I present the (so-called) "ETA theory"?.
  • You can´t?. O.K., then, what´s the purpose of your "Roswell" line?.
Raystorm wrote: Only one newspaper in Spain (El Mundo..[]...questions the authorship of the attack

Sorry, but you are wrong. It´s not only Only one newspaper in Spain, as you said. Just some international examples:

  • National Review: Either way, if the leads published in recent days pan out, it would appear that Spain’s 2004 elections were stolen by terrorists, alright. But the terrorist operation that brought the socialists to power may have been an inside job — in effect, a coup perpetrated by some of the same authorities who are responsible for preventing terror.[1]
  • The Times (London): ...conservatives, who had expected to win the 2004 election and remain convinced that the explosions which took 192 lives just before the election were too sophisticated to have been the work of a motley collection of Islamic extremists [2]
  • The Guardian: ..."Several suspected terrorists were blown up - or blew themselves up - in an apartment on the outskirts of Madrid days after the bombing, which certainly made things more difficult. In addition, it is hard to envision anyone among those who died or those who have been arrested having enough planning skills and technical sophistication to have organised the highly synchronised attacks and having set up the sophisticated explosive devices..." [3]

And, in Spain, it's not only "El Mundo". It is also "La Razón", and "El Comercio de Gijón", and "City FM", and the COPE Radio station...

  • Grin* If you agree to the original sentence, there's nothing more to discuss! :) But I'd like to point out (even though I really don't wanna get into a political debate here), that reading the three references you provided me, the overall impression I get is that they are making themselves echo of what the Popular Party said regarding their lost election, more than questioning the authorship of the attack. In fact, all three articles are full of conditionals 'if the leads pan out', 'it is hard to envision'. That's hardly leaning support to a perspective. And btw, La Razon is pretty much against El Mundo's perspective. And you can't be seriously citing a small regional newspaper to lend support to your argument. As for Cope...Is there anyone more biased in Spain against the government than Jimenez Losantos? ;) Cheers Randroide, and let's agree to disagree, between the two of us we'll manage to get all these hot topics NPOV hehe! Raystorm 10:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide 11:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A small regional newspaper is a newspaper. I am serious.
  • The Popular Party says very little about this messy issue. "El Mundo" leads the way.
  • "La Razón" against "El Mundo (Spain)"?. Please develop that point. I missed that.
  • If you think that Losantos is biased, that´s your opinion, and I respect that. But that´s ONLY your subjective opinion. And Losantos never lied (and please correct me if I am wrong).

Of course that we can reach NPOV with good faith and good sources. Educated disagreement should not be an obstacle.

Unsourced statement

[edit]
On 2 January 2007, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, announced that the peace talks with ETA have been cut.

Where´s the source?. I see nothing about this issue nor in "El Mundo" nor in "El Pais".Randroide 15:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found one, stating that the Peace Process is broken. Sentence could be rephrased to acommodate it (it's not Zapatero himself saying it, but one of his ministers).
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Rubalcaba/ETA/ha/roto/proceso/ha/liquidado/ha/acabado/elpepuesp/20070102elpepunac_10/Tes
Cheers Raystorm 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Good job. Thank you, Raystorm.[reply]

What about this?:

On 2 January 2007, Minister of the Interior Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba announced that "ETA has broken the [so-called Peace] process" [4]
Well, I've put in the article that the Spanish Government states that all peace talks with ETA are definitely broken now, which is pretty much the same. And it's kinda best to avoid red links if we can, right? Minister of Interior sounds too much of a direct translation to me to be right... Cheers Raystorm 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, Raystorm: The more exact the information is the better. If the translation is too much of a direct translation, native english speakers will let us know. If the issue is the red link... that can be fixed in a very short time. Randroide 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, it's pretty much the same, so I don't mind one way or another. If you fix the red link great: it'd be silly to name which member of the Spanish Government issued that statement if there is no wiki link provided to find out who he is. I think a good translation for Ministro del Interior might be Minister of Internal Affairs. Raystorm 19:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've yahooed spanish interior minister, minister of interior and minister of the interior. I get more hits for interior minister from english and american sources (examples: [1] , [2]). Thought I'd share, in case anyone wants to change it (minister of _the_ interior just sounds really wrong to me, but I guess I could be wrong)Raystorm 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding info

[edit]

En alguno de los contactos mantenidos entre enviados del Gobierno y ETA los terroristas llegaron a recordar el precedente de los atentados de Madrid, que cambiaron según sus análisis el resultado de las elecciones generales del 14-M. La banda, _que nada tuvo que ver con la matanza_, sí se valió de esa experiencia para presionar al Ejecutivo con la posibilidad de perpetrar un ataque en vísperas de las próximas elecciones locales y autonómicas de mayo.

If the ABC reference (that I quoted above) is used to say that ETA reminded the Government about 3/11 (as a pressure tactic), it has to be mentioned too that said reference explicitly states that ETA had nothing to do with that attack. Fair is fair. Raystorm 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the ABC article, Asterion. I reworded a bit your text to say that "the source says that ETA had nothing to do with that attack". You know, NPOV.
Thank you for your corrections in the block of text about tha ETA claim for the attack. I copypasted that block of text from the ETA article and I was in a hurry.Randroide 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asterion? :) Heh. Anyway, this should be mentioned in the aftermath section:

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/actitud/PP/terrorismo/le/pasa/factura/electoral/elpepuesp/20070119elpepunac_4/Tes

Para el 53% el Gobierno ha actuado de forma correcta tras el atentado, mientras para el 61% el PP lo ha hecho de forma incorrecta.

Cheers Raystorm 11:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry, Raystorm. I misidentified you with Asterion.
IMO the "El País" piece you brought is irrelevant rubbish (just as the too similar P.O.S. pieces published by "El Mundo", no offence intended against you), but it has been published in the first (triple "sigh!") Spanish newspaper, so you have a "right" to paste a NPOV resume if you think it is so important.
Plase remember to "extract" a juicy summary and paste the exact date, because "El País" articles go offline in less time that it takes to say "Suscribe!".
WP:BOLD, Raystorm. IMO you do not need to "ask for permission" to introduce sourced information. Have good premises. Randroide 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it wasn't a matter of boldness (you should know me better than that!) but of time constraints. I'll try to get around to adding it asap, but if someone could do it before...*hint hint* ;) Cheers Raystorm 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aS9IxDrFo4ic
  2. ^ http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=175126

"Controversial"

[edit]

What is wrong with saying el mundo is controversial? I don't think anyone can reasonably deny this. I have not gone as far as mentioning that it is a newspaper which over the past couple of years has been reporting things which have been proven to be completely fabricated. Neither have I pointed out that it has been giving credibility to wacky theories on how the current government was behind the 11-M terrorist attacks. So I think my edit remains NPOV.--Burgas00 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALL media outlets are "controversial" for certain persons. Your "controversial" line adds nothing. Randroide 14:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It adds that it must be treated with caution since it is a source which has been proven to fabricate information in the past and has been involved in a number of controversies regarding its professional standards. This is not the case for other large media outlets in Spain irrespective of their political stance (ABC, el pais etc..). The word controversial is as neutral a term as one can use when describing this newspaper.

Please desist from menacing to block me for my edits on my talk page. You are neither an admin nor do you own this article.

--Burgas00 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PRISA owned media concocted the lie of the "suicidal terrorist" in the trains in the 2004 Madrid train bombings...but I am not going adding the "controversial" sobriquet to all references to PRISA media. I am afraid that the same thing could be said about all media outlets in the world.

Add your sourced data against "El Mundo" (if you have any) to the article about "El Mundo". That´s the way to go.Randroide 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Mundo often has what is called 'Spin' by some and lies by others

A finales del verano de 2006 se producía la primera reunión a nivel ministerial del Foro de Diálogo Tripartito sobre Gibraltar. El consenso a tres bandas convirtió en histórico el acuerdo firmado entre las tres partes para mejorar la vida de los gibraltareños en cuestiones como el uso del aeropuerto, el tránsito de la verja, el pago de pensiones, la modernización de las telecomunicaciones.

http://www.elmundo.es/especiales/2002/04/espana/gibraltar/soberania.html

When they tell big ones about something one knows, how can you trust them on unknowns? --Gibnews 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no alternative source showing any lie.Randroide 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish nationality

[edit]

I know the families of the two Ecuatorians killed, having being deprived of their heads of family in such a tragic way, were given Spanish nationality. But I cannot find any source to the statement, which I believe should be added to the article. Any help? --euyyn 11:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006 Madrid–Barajas Airport bombing. 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).

  • 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) 17:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2006 Madrid–Barajas Airport bombing. 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).

  • 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) 09:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Madrid–Barajas_Airport_bombing&oldid=1252581514"