Jump to content

Talk:Asociación de Víctimas del Terrorismo/Questions discussion

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

Answers to the questions

Since all these question have answers, I state here the answers if somebody is interested

Q-Why there are no pictures of the alleged perpetrators, like in the 7 July 2005 London bombings. A-The cameras in the stations were not recording

Q-Why is unknown the type of explosives that went off in the trains. A-It is not unknown. It was GOMA2-ECO with a contamination of GOMA2-EC

Q-Why there are so much Spanish police informers among the alleged perpetrators. A-There is none in the islamic cell. Only in the people who supply the dynamite there were one whose warnings were not attended because he was known for his lies.

Q-How is possible that the alleged perpetrators were under surveillance and infiltrated by the Spanish police. A-They were not infiltrated. Some branches of the police have given unconnected attention to some of them at various periods of time without taking the big picture.

Q-How is possible that a spanish policeman [Maussili Kalaji] armed the bombs, and that a Guardia Civil agent provided weapons to the alleged perpetrators. A-This is not true. The cell phones were unblocked by this man who owns a cell phone shop. This happened before they were sold the terrorists so nobody can know that would finish being the activators of the bombs.

--Igor21 15:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Igor21. I suggest you to find a source giving those answers to the AVT and, then, inserting the answers into the article. Randroide 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the editor who introduced this conspiracy theory junk reads Wikipedia guidelines on content forking - this is a breach a mile high of the guidelines on that particular issue, including the duplication of several sources used in the main article on the train bombings. I hope the editor responsible is not related to anyone who cites the same policies at other editors! Apart from the blatant breach of Wikipedia policies, there are assertions made here that are not even backed up by the source. Who cannot distinguish between liberating mobile phones and "arming bombs"? An editor with either a vivid imagination or a very bad dictionary. Other assertions made are backed up by no evidence at all, the source does not contain supporting facts. Abide by Wikipedia guidelines please, before making any requests to other editors. Southofwatford 20:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Putting aside your personal attacks and other bad issues in your posting (conspiracy theory junk...), you are right about the "arming bombs" issue. Corrected and thank you very much.
It is sourced, man. This is the article about the AVT, and the AVT said that. If you see any blatant breach of Wikipedia policies I suggest you to explain what policy. Randroide 07:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion. [[1]]

I'll quote it to you to save you the trouble of having to go to the document and read it. Whilst it might be legitimate to reference the AVT's position on the Madrid bombings in an NPOV way, it is clearly not legitimate to use this article as a platform for floating POV assertions on the conspiracy theories as a weay around the dispute concerning the main page on the bombings. The guidelines are very clear - you have set up multiple pockets of conspiranoia in different articles tangentially related to the Madrid bombings and this is one of them. Removing your outrageous invention about the arming of the bombs does not bring it inside Wikipedia guidelines. When are you going to start observing the same rules that you cite so frequently, and so inaccurately, at other editors? Southofwatford 07:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Plase read WP:AGF. Have a nice day. Randroide 07:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How does good faith translate "owns the shop where some telephones were taken to be liberated" into "armed the bombs". Are you telling me it was a typo? If this is your only answer on the issue then an assumption of good faith is not possible. Every time you cite any Wikipedia guidelines at me from now on the response will be a link to this page or to others where you have repeated the same breach of guidelines - until you start first to apply the same guidelines to your own actions in Wikipedia. Southofwatford 07:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I had the idea in my mind that Kalaji armed the bombs, so I "translated" my idea, not the text I was working with. Psychologists will tell you that we actually see things with our mind, not with our eyes. Thank you again for pointing to my error. Randroide 07:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well now the idea you need to get your mind and eyes to deal with is content forking, and clear POV bias in this article. The source provides no facts to back up the assertions that are made, the proper place for discussing the issues raised is not this article. Southofwatford 08:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Content forking does not apply here: This is the article about the AVT, and the AVT said this and that.
  • The source provides the fact that the AVT said this and that, and that´s the fact appearing in the article.
  • Where´s the POV bias?.

Randroide 08:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole introduction to the section is content forking - duplication of content and sources from the main article. Your repeated use of the Independent source to attempt to say that Al-Qaeda involvement has been "discarded" is not what the source says, nor is it a proper treatment of the issue. The POV bias is in the reproduction of the AVT's allegations without any minimal corrective balance for serious allegations not supported by facts. It is correct to state the AVT's position on the bombings, it is quite wrong to use that as a platform for airing conspiracy theory allegations that can't be dealt with properly here in this article. Southofwatford 08:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is more productive if I ignore your "conspiracy theory allegations" (there is not any in the article) line and focus on the positive.

  • OK, there´s a disagreement about the meaning of "The Independent" source. I suggest to paste the exact words used by the source, just to avoid disputes.
  • You do not need a "corrective balance" for facts. OTOH, if the AVT assertions had been criticized, you can add that (sourced) criticism to the assertions.
  • The "serious allegation" is that the AVT said that, and the proof is in the PDF. No further proof is required.

Just an example:

The eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses is central to their religious beliefs. They believe that Jesus Christ has been ruling as king since 1914 Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses.

You do not need "proof" of Jesus Christ ruling as king since 1914 to write this line, because the sourced fact is not Jesus Christ ruling as king since 1914, but the Jehovah's Witnesses stating he´s ruling as king since 1914.

See the diference?. Randroide 08:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Randroide : Please read carefully this rule. If you put the opinions of certain group in bullets what you are doing is publizicing these points instead of informing about other people opinions. What is becoming more and more a sourced fact is that you are here to push your political agenda and that you are really imaginative in doing so. I do not know what admins will think about your creativity as propagandist but at some point someone is going to notice. You trust that everybody here is too busy to stop you but is a dangerous assumption. --Igor21 12:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I read there: Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view.
You explicitly rejected NPOV, Igor21, so it is not a surprise you do not like this article.
I see not a single line about "bullet points", but you are free to remove the bullets points (preserving the sourced content) if you find them so offensive.
You are failing WP:AGF.Randroide 12:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Randroide : I have read WP:AGF and I found this paragraph that fits so nicely with you :

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.

I think that with you we have sometthing more than reasonable supporting evidence, we have overwhelming supporting evidence.--Igor21 12:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are the diffs documenting my (alleged) sockpuppetry, lyes and vandalism, Igor21?. Randroide 12:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You can take your contributions list, remove the edits about cars, and you will have a no-ending list of violations of wikipedia rules specially your favorite rules to brake that are soapbox and undue weight.--Igor21 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification for sourcing the Al-Qaeda question like this in an article which has no direct connection to the issue - it should be dealt with properly in the main article, and the parallel (and non NPOV) description of the bombings should be removed and replaced with a link to the main article. If you choose to highlight (unsupported) allegations from your source then it is POV for the simple reason that you always choose the stuff that backs your own point of view - even if, as we have seen this morning, it occasionally doesn't make enough unfounded accusations of conspiracy for your personal taste. You know these accusations are contested Randroide, you know it very well, and that is why you attempt to spread them around different articles in Wikipedia in pursuit of your political objectives. You are in serial breach of the guidelines on content forking and NPOV because of this. Southofwatford 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

it is POV for the simple reason that you always choose the stuff that backs your own point of view

You are wrong about this point. Wrong twice:

  • Wrong about what it is POV.
  • Wrong about my edits.

But, anyways, I choose the stuff I add at Wikipedia, and my choosing is my own business.

We can delete any reference to al-Qaeda from the AVT article and we are done. Deal?.

About you mention to POV forking: You are wrong.Randroide 12:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Randroide 12:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

About the open questions (II)

I have bee recently accused by Randroide of unintentionally or intentionally blanking some "sourced" content from the article, namely the "open questions" that follow: 

* Why there are no pictures of the alleged perpetrators, like in the 7 July 2005 London bombings.
* Why is unknown the type of explosives that went off in the trains.
* Why there are so much Spanish police informers among the alleged perpetrators.
* How is possible that the alleged perpetrators were under surveillance and infiltrated by the Spanish police.
* How is possible that a spanish policeman [Maussili Kalaji] liberated the cellular phones used in the bombings, and that a Guardia Civil agent provided weapons to the alleged perpetrators.

I certainly did it intentionally, for the reasons given in the edit summary (which Randroide seemed not to have read). I do not want to start an edit war, so I will state my reasons here, so that we reach a consensus (of deleting them, I hope).

I think that these questions should be deleted on the basis that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The fact that these questions are or aren't sourced (present in referenced material) and/or supported by the AVT is irrelevant from an encyclopedic point of view, and are only included in the article as a way of giving them more visibility/credibility. The article could and should contain AVT's POV about the 11-M ("the AVT is skeptical about this or that official conclusion"), but in no way any reasoning or conspiracy theory behind this POV ("the AVT is skeptical [...] because this or that"). For that, the reader is kindly redirected to the AVT's web page, where they can read about AVT's arguments to their (readers' and AVT's) heart's content. — Isilanes 14:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The article could and should contain AVT's POV about the 11-M ("the AVT is skeptical about this or that official conclusion"), but in no way any reasoning or conspiracy theory behind this POV

That´s your POV. Randroide 15:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isilanes, this article is not about the Madrid bombings and listing the allegations made by the AVT without providing further context or balance is uninformative and simply airs allegations made without proof - the source certainly provides none. The rest of the description on the bombings and Randroide's favourite theme of police informers is irrelevant to the article and clearly duplicates material already included in the main article - this is content forking and because it is so one sided it is also POV content forking. Saying that I am wrong without providing arguments is meaningless. Southofwatford 15:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Southofwatford. Randroide: arguments please. Have you actually read WP:NOT#SOAPBOX? Please read WP:NOR too. The Wikipedia is a place for agreed upon information, not to publish your personal ideas or give publicity to your, or the AVT's, crusade. As an example, the page for the Earth can include the data that it is (believed to be) nearly spherical, and the page for the Flat Earth Society can say that this society believes the Earth to be flat. Both are well known facts (the Earth being spherical, and the FES arguing it being flat). However, neither the page of the Earth contains the datum of it being flat (no consensus on it) nor the FES page contains FES's reasons to believe Earth is flat (soapbox), beyond the well known fact that they do believe it. The reader of an encyclopedia may want to know what the AVT thinks of the 11-M, or what the official thesis is, but certainly does not want to be convinced either way (at least not by the encyclopedic article). For arguments, he or she must go elsewhere (e.g. to the references). — Isilanes 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Randroide: arguments please
  • This is the article about the AVT.
  • The AVT said this and that about this and that issue.
  • Is the AVT saying sourced?. Yes: It is sourced.
  • ...therefore, the AVT saying belongs in the AVT article.

Do you want to eliminate the bullet points presentation?. Fine, I will do it. Any other thing is deletion of sourced content. Randroide 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Let me illustrate the point with a reductio ad absurdum. The Flat Earth Society gives a list of 100 reasons why the Earth is flat (this is a proposition, for the sake of argument). Now, I go to the FES article and copy-paste the 100-item list there, because:
  • That is the article of the FES
  • The FES said this and that about this and that
  • Is the FES saying sourced? Yes: it is sourced.
...therefore, the FES saying belongs in the FES article. Yes? NO. No, because it goes against WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOR. The FES article must reflect FES's opinions about Earth being flat, not act as a loudspeaker for their propaganda on the subject. Please read carefully what is excluded regarding original research, and also WP:SYN, and see how they apply exactly to the situation at hand. I am tired of arguing the same again and again. Your (Randroide) only excuse is "but the AVT actually said that", which is irrelevant. Wikipedia can not include all the ravings of any lunatic mind, just because the lunatic mind is notable and deserves an article. Risking Godwin's Law to be called upon me, I'll say that the whole content of Mein Kampf should not be copy-pasted into Adolf Hitler's article, just because he wrote it. I am calling upon a votation below to settle the issue. — Isilanes 10:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are avoiding the issue, forked content is duplicated content and should be removed. Southofwatford 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There´s no forked content: This is not about the Madrid bombings, but about what the AVT said about the Madrid bombings.Randroide 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That statement could not be falser, the opening paragraph on the bombings has several sources with no connection whatsoever to the material on the AVT. On the basis of your statement I can now remove everything that does not concern what the AVT said. Southofwatford 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There´s a rationale for deleting this text:

The attack was first claimed by a unidentified hooded individual claiming to speak in the name of al-Qaida, and the basque terrorist group ETA denied any implication in it.[1]. According to the Spanish Judiciary, the perpetrators were local Islamic extremists[2] and two Guardia Civil and Spanish police informants.[3][4][5] Direct al-Qaeda involvement has been discarded[6] However,

Delete that text if you wish. I am not going to oppose that edit. Randroide 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, now we can talk about how to make the rest NPOV. Southofwatford 19:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

About the open questions (III)

I think that the open questions (see About the open questions (II) above) should be deleted, and call upon a votation to settle the issue for good. Please add a bulleted list item beginning with "Delete" or "Keep", followed by an optional (and very short) summary of your arguments. Don't forget to sign your vote. — Isilanes 10:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The poll is irrelevant

The contents belong into the article per WP:CENSOR and per WP:ATTRIBUTION

You can organize a poll to delete the whole article, if you wish, and win it. The final result would to be the same: Admin intervention to settle the issue. Randroide 10:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I have tried to convince you with arguments, and realized that there is no blinder person than that who doesn't want to see. If a majority of editors agree on my arguments, and if you are alone in your irrationality... who is the censor? For example, who are you to say that a majority of editors can not agree to delete some content, even if you object to the deletion, as WP:CENSOR says. Polls have been used to settle issues in Wikipedia frequently. Are you implying that polls are bad, or that Wikipedia content should not be agreed upon? — Isilanes 10:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The summary of your very first edit showed your intention: Censorship, and that´s verbotten at Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is no place for making campaings (and less so against judicial decissions))[2]
An error was corrected [3], Bullet points were eliminated [4], the block of text about the Madrid bombings was eliminated [5].
Now you intention is to delete sourced content: Over my dead body, pal. An admin will tell us who´s right. I am sure I am: Be prepared to be judged. I am.
And please take a look at WP:DEMOCRACY. This place being a democracy, I would not be here.
Randroide 10:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You cite Democracy, but despise polls? In my country that is not democracy. You may have noticed that I didn't enter an edit war, but rather resorted to the talk page to discuss the subject. You are the one censoring, "pal". Moreover, you cite WP:ATTRIBUTION. OK, do actually read it, specially the part about using self-published sources, and tell me how the arguments of the AVT in a document they self-published is not questionable. I quote:
A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process [...] Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
I read on:
Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves: Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:
   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Tell my why these open questions are relevant to the notability of the AVT. Tell me how these questions are not contentious. Tell me how they are not self-serving to the AVT. Tell me how they do not involve claims about third parties. The only points the questions don't violate are that it is accepted that the AVT said that, and that the article is not based primarily on such sources, although the section is. — Isilanes 11:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Democracy is mob rule, Isilanes. Wikipedia being a democracy I would not collaborate here. Please click here to know about the most famous democratically elected ruler of the 20th century.

Wikipedia is about consensus. I (must) be part of the consensus. I accepted the deletion of the bullet points, the deletion of a block of text. I am wondering what you did for consensus here.

The article is about the AVT, and we have an AVT source saying this and that about the AVT position on this and that matter. 

   * it is relevant to their notability; (it is, the AVT choose to edit a phamplet about the issue)
   * it is not contentious; (the AVT only asks questions, where´s the contention?)
   * it is not unduly self-serving; (AVT says nothing about herself)
   * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; (AVT claims nothing, only asks questions)
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; (hosted at the AVT webpage)
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources. (it is not)

Randroide 11:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • You are missing the point. The list of open questions is argumentative, and as such, merely present to support AVT's ideas, not to inform the reader about them. Please, read WP:NOT#SOAP again.
With regard to the points above:
  • it is relevant to their notability; (it is, the AVT choose to edit a phamplet about the issue). That is not the point. Is the AVT notable because of that pamphlet? The AVT regarding the pamphlet as relevant doesn't make it relevant. Moreover, "the most famous democratically elected ruler of the XX. century", as you call Hitler, did write a book entitled Mein Kampf, and you do not support to copy-paste it in his article, do you? If I read about Hitler in the Wikipedia, I want to know that he was a racist, and that he wrote a book supporting racism. What I definitely don't want is to read a list of his "arguments" to be a racist. For that, I can refer to the book, that is cited in the article.
  • it is not contentious; (the AVT only asks questions, where´s the contention?) The "questions" the AVT asks are full of poison, and you know that. They consistently beg the question, and imply things. The questions are made to discredit a police investigation and judicial decisions. I might as well ask you "Did you stop beating your wife?", and pretend that it's "just a question". However, the truth is that it is contentious.
  • it is not unduly self-serving; (AVT says nothing about herself). The AVT says they are are an association of victims of terrorism, but they are actually victims of ETA terrorism. I have no objection to that. But what I do object is to the fact that they try, against all reason, to involve ETA in the 11-M, and will use these "open questions" as a tool for that. If they use their pamphlets to spread the propaganda, it's fine for me. But please, don't use Wikipedia as a friggin' soapbox for that! Including the "questions" in the Wikipedia certainly gives some kind of "credit" to the version of the AVT, so yes, they are self-serving.
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; (AVT claims nothing, only asks questions). Isn't it suspicious that you are so wealthy, when there are so many drug smugglers that are rich? Why is your wife so happy when the milkman comes every morning, and why does he take so long inside your house? Kids abused by their parents fear playing with other children. Why do your kids fear playing with other children? They are all "just questions"... I am not "claiming" anything! Denying that the questions imply something is called to throw a stone and hide the hand. The questions are making implications about the informers, the police, the judges and the official version of the facts. If you don't accept that, further discussion is futile.

The last two points were already agreed upon. — Isilanes 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Isilanes wrote: But what I do object is to the fact that they try, against all reason, to involve ETA in the 11-M

Where´s ETA mentioned? Randroide 12:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Isilanes wrote:If I read about Hitler in the Wikipedia, I want to know that he was a racist, and that he wrote a book supporting racism. What I definitely don't want is to read a list of his "arguments" to be a racist.

You are suffering what it was called Libido ignorandi. If you really want to remain ignorant, do NOT read Hitler's political beliefs.

And, well, once you breached the ETA subject. What about the ETA arguments you can read at ETA?. Why those arguments are good for the article but AVT´s are no?. Give us your reasons, please. Randroide 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Relationship to ETA. If you are not Spanish, and you have never ever read El Mundo, or listened to Acebes or Rajoy, I may forgive your ignorance. If you are, or you have, then you must already know about the "conspiranoia" of the right wing in this country, so don't pretend otherwise.
2) About the libido ignorandi. Don't strawman me, please. My words don't imply that I do not want to be informed. What I say is that I do not want to see that info in an encyclopedia, because it is not encyclopedic, so does not belong there. To know more (unencyclopedic) facts about the subject, I repeat, the reader must resort to the references.
3) Following your advice, I have read Hitler's political beliefs, and I find little, if any, argumentative material there. The article mentions what Hitler and the Nazi party believed, not why they believed it (in the sense that it is not parroting Hitler's excuses to believe that). As far as I can see, it does not reproduce excerpts from Nazi propaganda machinery. Most, if not all, is simply historic material, and I can't find in that article any propagandistic material "sourced" to the Nazi party or Hitler.
4) About ETA, I have not read the whole article (because it is lengthy and boring, to be honest), but any argumentative propaganda you find there, you have my wholehearted support for deleting. Your poor excuse of an argument against me is a tu quoque (because something is, supposedly, in another article, then it is also good here) and a straw man, because you are attributing to me something that I didn't do (support some alleged non-neutral POV in another article), then criticizing it. Thanks for making it clear that you have no further arguments. — Isilanes 14:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Where is the reference to ETA at Asociación de Víctimas del Terrorismo?. I do not care about what is being said about ETA by El Mundo, Acebes or Rajoy, because that newspaper and those individuals have different pages. This is the talk page to Asociación de Víctimas del Terrorismo. Where ETA is mentioned in this page?. Randroide 14:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You were asking me why I considered the "open questions" as self-serving. They are self-serving because the AVT blatantly supports the "conspiranoia" theory (that it is ETA, and not Al-Qaeda, the one behind the bombings), and they use any method to discredit the official version (that it is Al-Qaeda, or related islamic extremist groups). The questions the inclusion of which you support are an example of the discredit campaign of the AVT, trying to first deny that Al-Qaeda is behind the bombing, and second, to use a false dilemma to imply that if it wasn't Al-Qaeda it was ETA. This two reasons are important background to see that the questions are self-serving, mostly because the first step (discredit of the official version) is just a means to the second step: accusation to ETA. However, forget about ETA if you wish. The questions are self-serving because they are blatant propaganda of the ideas of the AVT (discredit of the official version, be it to support the idea of ETA being the author of the bombings or not), which is directly or indirectly using the Wikipedia as a soapbox. — Isilanes 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Where are your sources for your statements?. With no sources you said nothing, so I have nothing to say to you. Randroide 16:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorces? Read these: (sorry, in Spanish)
  1. F. J. Alcaraz against the judicial decisions about the 11-M here
  2. AVT lawyer interrogating ETA members about their supposed relationship with the 11-M "islamists" here
  3. The AVT rhetorically asking why a former ETA collaborator defended a 11-M victim here
  4. The AVT "happy" because ETA member Henri Parot is called to declare in relation with the 11-M here
  5. The AVT "not understanding" why some reports were allegedly made to "determine that ETA was not behind the 11-M" here
Enough, your highness? Still want to deny that a) the AVT has a clear agenda of discrediting the official version and judicial decisions about the 11-M and b) that the AVT has a clear agenda of trying to involve ETA in the 11-M bombings? — Isilanes 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


You can withdraw from the debate if you choose Randroide, it doesn't mean that this is the end of the matter - this article still has POV problems that need to be dealt with. The opinion of other editors involved so far is clear. Southofwatford 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to withdraw. Never.

By the sources you gently provided I see that the AVT wants to follow all lines of investigation about the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Do you oppose that attitude?. It´s you problem. This page is about the AVT, and it is a sourced fact that hte AVT stated this and that. Randroide 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I do not oppose to follow all lines of investigation. Moreover, I hereby ask that Mickey Mouse, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Chuck Norris be also investigated, and anyone opposing is obstructing the Justice. By the way, I'd also like Alcaraz, Rajoy, Acebes and Zaplana be investigated, as possible terrorists behind the 11-M. I am not saying that any or all are guilty. Just that I want to know the truth, and hence they should be investigated. About the AVT having actually said that: this is irrelevant!. How many times do you need it said? Your only justification to include that material is that the AVT said that. However, for the same reason, I could also include that on this or that day Alcaraz said "heck, it's cold today!", or "it seems it's going to rain in the evening...", or whatever. All the reasons you have given until now apply to the sentences I mention, so I challenge you to tell me why they shouldn't be included. And if you say that these sentences are not sourced (which for the sake of argument is irrelevant), then tell my why I shouldn't copy-paste all the material that I cite above, for example. — Isilanes 09:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Isilanes wrote: Your only justification to include that material is that the AVT said that
And it is a valid justification.
If it would be any proof of Chuck Norris being involved in the bombings, I would like to know, just like the Brandon Mayfield history, or just as that buzz of al-Qaida having anything to do with the bombings.
Why do you not add facts to the article based on those sources you gently provided?. You did a great job, it would be a pity to let those sources "rot" in the talk page.Randroide 09:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "And it is a valid justification.". No, it is not. You fail to see my reductio ad absurdum. Quoting just anything that the person/s portrayed in an article said, on the sole basis that he/she/they actually said it, is ridiculous. I can't waste more time and patience explaining it, sorry. You also say that if Chuck Norris were involved, you'd like to know. However, you wouldn't like to waste police efforts and tax money investigating all the persons in the world (e.g. Chuck Norris) on the sole basis of the investigation being as wide as possible, would you? (anyway, this is tangential to the subject of the discussion). Finally, you encourage me to add to the article the info I cite above. But that was a continuation of the reductio ad absurdum! Wikipedia can not act as a mere container for all the information that appears on the net or elsewhere. What can I argue, if you even agree with the reductio ad absurdum? Can we agree to disagree? I think that anyone wanting to know about this little controversy has more than enough reading material, and I would be surprised if either side could add substantially fresh arguments. I think I'll stop thrashing this talk page. I would just like to know how to fix the problem, because if anyone deletes the "open questions" from the article, you will edit-war him or her to death. I do not want to call attention upon the subject by accusing you of vandalism in your talk page, because you are not a vandal, just wrong. And I called upon a poll, but as you kindly pointed out, this is not a democracy, and I know you will not abide by the result (3-0 for delete, right now). If there is a way of asking for admin mediation, I'd gladly have it ("I am ready to be judged", as you said once). — Isilanes 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Isilanes wrote: you wouldn't like to waste police efforts and tax money investigating all the persons in the world
No, but it is common sense to follow all the rational leads. Do you think that the "Islamist fanatics" is the only rational lead?. Good for you. Other notable groups disagree.
I suggest you to go for a RfC. Suggested wording: Wether this sourced block of text should be in the article: TEXT UNDER DISPUTE "In the aforementioned PDF the AVT asks why there are no pictures of the alleged perpetrators, like in the 7 July 2005 London bombings, why is unknown the type of explosives that went off in the trains, why there are so much Spanish police informers among the alleged perpetrators,how is possible that the alleged perpetrators were under surveillance and infiltrated by the Spanish and how is possible that a spanish policeman [Maussili Kalaji] liberated the cellular phones used in the bombings, and that a Guardia Civil agent provided weapons to the alleged perpetrators."
Randroide 08:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the user who stated that edit wars are won by the side with most members obviously believes that numbers are important - but clearly not in a democratic sense. It is clear what the majority of editors involved think, and Randroide cannot expect to have a veto on changes on the article. If you are unwilling to simply make the change then the next step is a Request for Comment or a Request for Mediation. Southofwatford 15:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

None of which changes the fact that the text you inserted contains unsustained assertions and is completely POV - why is it that you feel exempt from the obligation to make your content NPOV? Southofwatford 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is 100% NPOV: "The AVT said this and that", NOT "things are this and that".Randroide 19:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There we have the Randroide definition of NPOV - I select sources that support my point of view and insert that point of view. No balance, no neutral assessment of anything. No criteria except whether I agree with the content. This is RPOV - Randroide's point of view, you got the N confused with the R. Southofwatford 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not forge the SPOV, when Southofwatford says: "I do not like this sourced fact, delete it". Randroide 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong Randroide, the SPOV - as I have made clear to you many times - is '"do not abuse Wikipedia as a platform for your partisan political opinions"'. You continue to do so. Southofwatford 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing facts is not "abuse Wikipedia as a platform for your partisan political opinions". OTOH, my political convictions (not "opinions") are totally irrelevant. Randroide 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Highly selective use of sources to reflect those issues which your "convictions" lead you to think important has nothing to do with NPOV. Southofwatford 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Go figure: "Highly selective". The AVT website!!!. How selective indeed!!!. Randroide 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats right - nothing at all to provide balance. You really imagine that a page about the AVT has to be just about the AVT's opinions or propaganda. You haven't read a single one of the guidelines you cite so often - and which you break so often. Southofwatford 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to Add additional information to provide balance, if you thing such thing is neede. I never oppose the adition of sourced information. Randroide 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is your responsibility to ensure that your contributions are NPOV and comply with Wikipedia guidelines - you cannot pass that responsibility onto anybody else. You have already had to be forced to withdraw outrageously false accusations from this page, and be pressured into acknowledging content forking - only POV is left and then you can can almost claim to be behaving yourself. Southofwatford 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing what an organization said is the epithome of the NPOV.
My outrageously false accusations (please note striked "s") was in fac outrageously mistaken accusation, as I explained.Randroide 08:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asociación_de_Víctimas_del_Terrorismo/Questions_discussion&oldid=620137320"