Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:33, 14 March 2004

Latest revision as of 07:51, 11 March 2025

Line 1:

{{Skip to talk}}

<center>

{{Talk header}}

=='''IMPORTANT''' - '''IMPORTANT''' - '''IMPORTANT''' - '''IMPORTANT'''==

{{Controversial}}

</center>

{{ITN talk|11 March|2004|oldid=2720193}}

{{On this day|date1=2005-03-11|oldid1=16334936|date2=2006-03-11|oldid2=43298513|date3=2009-03-11|oldid3=275825972|date4=2010-03-11|oldid4=349264728|date5=2014-03-11|oldid5=599142151}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=High|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Explosives|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Islam|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|importance=Mid|Salaf=yes|Sunni=yes}}

{{WikiProject Spain|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Trains|importance=Mid}}

}}

{{Afd-merged-from|Jamal Zougam|Jamal Zougam|31 August 2024}}

{{afd-merged-from|2004 Madrid train bombings suspects|2004 Madrid train bombings suspects|30 August 2024|8 March 2025}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archive=Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive %(counter)d

|algo=old(90d)

|archiveheader={{automatic archive navigator}}

|maxarchivesize=100K

|minthreadsleft=4

|counter=13

}}

{{Archives|age=90|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}

== "Spanish nationals who sold the explosives to the terrorists were also arrested." ==

The article is getting '''far too long'''. At the bottom of this page there is a section about its splitting. Please take a time to read it and give your opinion. [[User:Pfortuny]] has suggested the splitting being done by Adam Carr, who has a great background of success in dealing with complicated historical matters. Thank you. [[User:Pfortuny|Pfortuny]] 09:32, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just have to ask, do we really need 15 sources for that statement? [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 06:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

'''Some suggestions for editors'''

:Please look to the archived discussion to see how dificult is to say the truth in this article. The more evident issue have required months and tones of references.--[[User:Igor21|Igor21]] 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

*Avoid duplication by reading the article before adding material

*All names of organisations and position should be in English

*All persons should be given their full names and [[wikified]] at first reference

*Conversely, subsequent references should not be wikified

*Write in the past tense

*Write in complete sentences, not dot-points

*Do not write one-sentence paragraphs

*Do not add facts at random, consider the structure of the article

*Do not comment out content, move it to the talk page.

All three sources [10] [11] [12] that are now cited after " Although they had no role in the planning or implementation, the Spanish miners who sold the explosives to the terrorists were also arrested." do not mention any such thing, this should be changed. [[User:Penschy|Penschy]] ([[User talk:Penschy|talk]]) 14:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

''Using HTML header tags breaks the sectioning of the page. Don't do it!''

== External links modified ==

----

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Archived discussions:<br>

'''[[Talk:March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks/Archive1|Archive 1]]'''

I have just modified one external link on [[2004 Madrid train bombings]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/812774903|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

----

*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.zoomnews.es/499926/actualidad/espana/pilar-manjon-lamenta-ostracismo-las-victimas-once-anos-despues-del-11-m

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005135913/http://www.cadenaser.com/comunes/2004/11m/portada.html to http://www.cadenaser.com/comunes/2004/11m/portada.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

== Title translation ==

''Vice-president Javier Arenas defended... '' -- I'm a little confused about the position occupied by this person. Is he J-M Aznar's deputy? The Spanish "President of the Government" title has caused confusion before (in the White House, I believe!) and should be translated into English as ''Prime Minister''. Similarly, if Sr Arenas is Aznar's deputy, then he should be described as ''Deputy Prime Minister''. -- [[User:Arwel Parry|Arwel]] 03:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

In Spain we do not consider the ''President of the Government'' as "prime minister to the King" except possibly in the strictest legalistic sense. Similarly, members of the cabinet are called ''ministros'', and are not members of a ''gabinete'' but members of a ''gobierno'', and are perceived as being ministers to the president, not to the King. The fact that the terms have caused confusion in the White house is a statement about the White house. Apparently Bush had trouble understanding that Aznar does not own a ranch. Do the terms also cause confusion in Britain?

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

We also call our legislature "parlamento" and the lower house "congreso". Is the fact that this is inconsistent with the name of the USA's legislature and lower house a justification for translating "parlamento" as "congress" and "congreso" as something else? I don't think so.

== Requested move 9 June 2018 ==

But this is the English wikipedia and I'll defer to whatever English speakers think is the correct translation.

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->

[[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 04:21, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''no consensus to move''' the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 04:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

In English a President is a head of state and a Prime Minister is a head of government. Any other usage causes great confusion. The only exception seems to be for Germany and Austria where Chancellor is used. Arenas should be called Deputy Prime Minister, whatever his Spanish title might be (the Spanish title can be put in brackets). Likewise, in English a legislative body can be called a parliament, a legislature or a congress. All three terms are understood to mean the same thing. I think legislature is most "neutral" of these terms. Again, the correct name can be put in brackets after. "The Spanish legislature (the Cortes) has passed a bill etc". [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 05:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----

[[:2004 Madrid train bombings]] → {{no redirect|Madrid train bombings}} – Per [[Manchester Arena bombing]]. [[User:Unreal7|Unreal7]] ([[User talk:Unreal7|talk]]) 12:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The misunderstanding comes from assuming that President stands for president of the nation. But President is a more general term, it is just someone who presides over something. Aznar is Presidente del Gobierno and Gobierno in Spanish is a false friend, it is literally the Council of Ministers, so the direct translation would be President of the Council of Ministers. What he is not is President of Spain (we are a kingdom). So I think the formal title should be given once, and then abbreviated to Prime Minister in the sequel. Same for Arenas. I don't think there is a simple solution for these things, you should se the problems we have with things like Secretary of State, Chief of Staff, General Surgeon or Chancellor of the Exchequer. [[User:Eiaccb|eiaccb]] 07:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' there have been other bombings [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

----

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== Requested move 27 December 2019 ==

This is an English-language encyclopaedia, and the conventional English usages must be followed. In English a President is a head of state and a Prime Minister is a head of government. In English Aznar is "Prime Minister of Spain,"

and what he is called in Spanish is irrelevant. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 08:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->

:Of course, of course, this is your wikipedia, it is not for us to speak on these matters. But at last I saw why I have not been understanding your position. It is that 'President' in English is very rarely used, so you are quick to expect some meanings from the word. For most cases where we would use 'Presidente', you would use 'Chairman' instead. So for us it is very unspecific and needs to be qualified unless the context is very well understood. So this only comes to show how limited our mastery of English really is, even though we may delude ourselves into thinking otherwise at times. [[User:Eiaccb|eiaccb]] 09:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''

The result of the move request was: '''not moved''' to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. {{#if:|<small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>|{{#if:|<small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small>}}}} [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 12:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

::For what it's worth, during the second spanish republic (1931-1936), we had ''Presidente de la Republica'' and ''Presidente del Gobierno''. The "cabinet" is never called ''gabinete'', but variously ''consejo de ministros'' (the name of their weekly Friday meeting), ''gobierno'' and ''ejecutivo''. Eiaccb is right about ''President'' translating more properly as ''chairman''. Although there is an argument to be made for using the most common translation in the English-speaking press, to trust the judgement of foreign press on things like this is like judging their reporting of scientific discoveries. [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 17:47, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

----

May I propose you to consider using the term [[Minister President]], which would not confuse readers limited to the English language, but have the advantage of being closer to the original?--[[User:212.181.86.76|212.181.86.76]] 22:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Breaking up the article? ==

Also this article is getting too long. I propose that this article be confined to the events of March 11, and that everything else be put in a new article, [[Responses to the March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks]]. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 08:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:I agree. The article is too long, and full of stuff that acts more like "meat on the bone" (like demonstrations, reactions etc.). I say go for it :) --[[User:Vikingstad|Vikingstad]] 08:28, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will wait a bit and see what others say.

Also, I don't think it's very appropriate that Viking's picture of the demonstration in Barcelona shows the hammer-and-sickle banner of some fringe Communist group, and only a small number of people. If there were 1.5 million people in the P de Gracia, a more representative photo would be better. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 08:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Well, I uploaded a new one. Is it any better? --[[User:Vikingstad|Vikingstad]] 08:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

'''On the main page''' there is a paragraph about this (new version referring to the demonstrations). If a new article about the "demonstrations etc..." appears, you could link to it at the "gather". (I'm not being around for a while). [[MediaWiki:Itn|This]] is the place to edit those news headers. [[User:Pfortuny|Pfortuny]] 09:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article has not reached a stable state yet, although it might soon. There is not much more to add by way of facts, and now that there is a Judicial investigation underway the judge will most likely declare the proceedings secret (''secreto de sumario''). On the other hand, there are a lot of factual inconsistencies and incomplete information, and it would be good if the article stayed in one piece while those are sorted out. We may yet decide to rearrange the sections. When the article is stable it can be broken up. [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 17:47, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

== bomb outrages in peace time (Was: Lockerbie) ==

Lockerbie produced more casualties, so it should be reworded. This, however, is currently to 186 dead and over 1000 injured. Let's all pray it stays at that. --[[User:Eiaccb|eiaccb]] 14:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::They are still pulling dead bodies from wrecks and people are dying in hospitals... [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 14:55, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

: You guys edit so fast... :-) --[[User:Eiaccb|eiaccb]] 14:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:: I think this happening in Madrid is the worst even if not that many people died, because there were almost one thousand of peoples injuried (183 + 600 = 783 people). In lockerbie, about 300 hundred was killed. So I'm planning to add ''this make this act one of the worst terror attack in Europe in peace-time.'' // [[User:Rogper|Rogper]] 16:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::We're up to 190 and 1247... [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 18:09, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

:Actually Lockerbie did ''not'' produce more casualties. There were about 100 more killed, but far, far, far less injured. The definition of casualties is the combined total of killed, injured and those who later die of their injuries. In a military sense it also often includes those taken prisoner, but that is obviously not applicable here.

:I'm not sure how many people were injured at Lockerbie, but it was probably less than 100. Only 11 people were killed on the ground, and the ground is the only place where injuries would have happened. Everyone on the flight was killed. So, if we assume that Lockerbie saw 100 injured, add in the 270 killed on the plane and the 11 on the ground, then we have a casualty count of 391. Here there over 1,000 casualties. [[User:David Newton|David Newton]] 16:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm changing the sentece in the first paragraph from

: ... making the attacks the deadliest in [[Western Europe]] since the [[Lockerbie bombing]] of [[December 21]], [[1988]], and inflicting the greatest number of casualties in any [[terrorism|terrorist]] attack in a [[Europe]]an country in modern times.

to

: ... making the attacks one of the worst bomb outrages in Europe in peace time.

This does not mean we have regret the [[Lockerbie bombing]] or the [[Moskva siege]].

// [[User:Rogper|Rogper]] 14:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Jiang's opinion of article ==

You people are too enthusiastic. Not every single fact you read in the news belongs here -- only significant ones. Encyclopedia articles are not narratives. They are only supposed to state the significance of things. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 09:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jiang, I agree there is too much news-narrative in the article at present, but over time it will settle down and become more encyclopaedic. And the fact is that WP is now functioning as a news agency, so we should focus on making its news coverage accurate and balanced rather than denouncing it. Actually I think the article is a fairly impressive piece of article-writing-on-the-run at the moment. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 09:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of course, there are too many things in the article at present, but as with everything, it is better to have an overinformative article and prune them afterwards than having to do the research after all the news have become both old news and been lost in the "historical articles" of the news agencies. We are all aware of its being too detailed, but ''general criticisms'' without specifics are not much helpful. [[User:Pfortuny|Pfortuny]] 11:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Es increible

Es increïble con que rapideza se puede hacer un artículo detallado como este. Felicidades.

Translation: It is incredible how rapidly one can make/create a detailed article like this one. Congratulations.

== Arrests ==

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3509212.stm "Spanish authorities have arrested five suspects... the arrested men were three Moroccans and two Indians." FYI. [[User:Hajor|&ndash;''Hajor'']] 19:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== The Bomb ==

here's a diagram of the explosive devices. It seems Cell Phones alarms or calls into them were used to detonate the devices simultaneously.

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2004/graficos/mar/s2/bomba.gif

[[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 22:00, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

==Infobox==

I just removed this from the objectives section of the infobox:

:To pressure US-allied to end their alliance against Islamic countries (the [[war on terrorism]])[http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2CDD53D6-7AF7-40C7-AF88-32A16072F81B.htm].

This objective presupposes that ETA were not responsible, so far they haven't been ruled out. It can go back in if and when we confirm that it was an Islamic fundamentalist group to blame. [[User:Fabiform|fabiform]] | [[User talk:Fabiform|talk]] 23:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But can we know anything about the objectives at all?<br>

ETA has not announced any objectives.<br>

--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 00:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==INFOBOX removal==

A user by the name of 'Wik' is repeatedly removing the INFOBOX without any discussion. What do you all think, is the infobox important to have or not?

Opinions...

--[[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 23:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:I think it's vitally important to have it. It summarizes information about the attack in a clean and efficient way. --[[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]] 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:: I agree. 2 to 1. --[[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 23:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:: Me too. 3 to 1. --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 00:06, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The infobox is pointless repetition. Are we going to have summary boxes at every article now? Infoboxes should only be for additional information that is not suitable to be presented in the running text, such as those in the country articles. If you want to have a summary, that's simply what the first paragraph is for (or the first two paragraphs if necessary). --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 00:08, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Well... shouldn't this information be in the introduction (a lot of it already is of course, so why repeat on the right hand side of the screen what we've got written on the left hand side)? See [[News style]]. I have a couple of problems with the infobox; some parts of it really do seem to be duplicating information that is very clear in the article. Like that the objective was to instill terror, that's just a definition of terrorism. I don't think an infobox for events such as this is a standard practice in wikipedia, so if we're going to use one we need to better define its purpose and refine its contents. [[User:Fabiform|fabiform]] | [[User talk:Fabiform|talk]] 00:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah! I came here to suggest the removal! I think the article is very well done - congratulations to the editors - but the infobox is a bit funny. See the '''medium''' and '''objective''' sections, for instance. Do we need a definition of terrorism there? Keep date, casualties and facts. I think the rest should go. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|Muriel]] 01:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the removal of the ''sections'' '''Objectives''' and '''Consequences'''. I think the others are of great value for a first-time reader of the article, and it does (in my eyes) contribute to the article's credibility and its seriousness.<br>

--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 01:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

=="Worst peacetime bomb attack in Europe"==

I'm finding this statement a little nebulous, and would like clarification. I've also read this statement, and assume "peacetime" is just another way of saying "since World War II." I'd suggest changing it to "since World War II" if so, since "peactime" could mean anything from the Middle Ages on down, when Europe was at peace. Also, I think it's stronger and also accurate to say "worst act of terrorism in Europe since World War II." It's not specifically the worst BOMB attack, I don't think, but the worst act of ANY kind of terrorism in Europe (from airport shootings to bombs to any other sort of terrorism). [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]], 13 Mar 2004

If it's stronger to write "act of terrorism" instead of "peacetime bomb attack", then don't write it. We should try to let facts speak for themselves, and not try to enhance with propagandisms.<br>

--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 00:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Yes, of course, but do you see that something can simultaneously be the worst bomb attack since World War II AND, at the exact same time, also the worst act pf terrorism? One is not more untrue than another necessarily. It's just another way of phrasing the information. [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]], 14 Mar 2004

::I see it as a matter of credibility. Personally, I like the [[BBC]]-style and not the [[FOX News|Fox]]-style. I've nothing against variations in the prose, but what I commented on was the choise between two wordings which for me differ mainly in their propagandist charge.

::Of course it is an act of terrorism, but that is well known. Over-using the terrorism-word gives at least me a feeling of the text taking part in other and bigger conflicts and trying to influence the reader, i.e. me, in these conflicts too. When the reader get such an impression, the credibility of the message is diminished. (BTW, that harms also the wikipedia-project as a whole.)

::--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 00:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::Here's the point, and I then I don't need to say anything more since I believe you're overthinking this and I'll let others have their say. To me, it's clearer to say "act of terrorism" because acts of terrorism come in many forms: gun attacks with or without hostages (as in the Rome airport in the 1980s and the 1972 Munich Olympics), attacks by plane (9/11, though obviously not in Europe) and bomb attacks. I'm not sure why there is this need to perceive the use of the phrase "act of terrorism" as some sort of Fox News propaganda (and it's not as if the BBC wouldn't use the word "terrorism"). Calling it the "worst act of terrorism" instead of just the "worst bomb attack", if indeed that is true, means that one can compare this with any other terrorist action and not just bomb attacks specifically. To me, that makes the article more clear. [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]], 14 Mar 2004

:::::Maybe it needs some editing, yes. --[[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 00:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:"the worst bomb attack in Europe since World War II." Are we certain there was no day of bombings in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, or in the Greek Civil War, that was worse? - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 01:19, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

::OK, I think "worst peacetime attack in Europe since World War II" might be ok, or I can revert. But to me, this is another reason to call it "the worst terrorist attack since World War II" - it's a cleaner statement that excludes the Balkan War (wartime). This phrase has been used in the media, such as [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/13/EDGLU5JHTL1.DTL 1] [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]], 14 Mar 2004

==Copyvio==

This page is now apparently a copyvio from the Associated Press. ie see an example AP-sourced website at: [http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V9574.AP-Spain-al-Qaida.html] --[[User:Evercat|Evercat]] 00:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Most of the info has been edited out. Further wording may be welcomed to distance it from the original AP article. The facts are important to keep though. --[[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 00:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm about to remove [[:Image:MadridBlastMap.jpg]] from the article because of similar concerns. [[User:Hajor|&ndash;''Hajor'']] 01:36, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Commented-out passage from intro ==

TOO MANY DETAILS, AND INFO PRESENTED WHICH HAS NOT EVEN BEING FULLY EXPLAINED UNTIL FURTHER DOWN

:The Spanish government considers ETA the most likely culprit, although it has not ruled out other possibilities. Basque separatists, some international sources, and a van found outside the train station in [[Alcalá de Henares]] point to [[al-Qaida]]. There have been claims (so far unconfirmed) that a previously unknown [[Islamic fundamentalist]] group calling itself the ''Lions of al-Mufridun'' has claimed responsibility, while the [[London]] [[Arabic language]] [[newspaper]] ''[[Al-Quds al-Arabi]]'' on March 11 reported receiving a communication purporting to claim responsibility on behalf of an al-Qaida faction. On March 12, the Basque newspaper ''[[Gara]]'' and Basque public TV [[Euskal Telebista]] received communications from ETA denying any involvement in the attacks.

:Around 9 pm CET on Saturday, March 13, it became known that a video tape was found in Madrid in which Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks "in response for the crimes of Bush and his allies" [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=1&u=/ap/20040314/ap_on_re_eu/spain_al_qaida]. Radio station [[Cadena SER]] accuses the government of knowing about the tape since 11 am and lying about it, and also of hiding a similar audio tape found in the van at El Pozo.

I have moved the paragraphs above from the intro, where they were commented out. It is always better to move sections to Talk pages than commenting them out in the source. [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 02:28, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

:I'm not suggesting this info be removed, I just think it should be more carefully edited and rewritten, in order to give a global view of the aftermath of the event. In its current form it is poor. If you see the 9/11 page, the aftermath intro encompasses info from several months after the event. With time, and depending on how events unfold, the above info will change to something probably completely different. -- [[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 03:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Government misinformation ==

The gist of [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,290496,00.html this story] in Der Spiegel is the the Spanish government instructed all embassies to blame ETA for the attacks in the face of overwhelming evidence of Al-Qaeda involvement. My German is, unfortunately, not up to the task of excerpting and translating the article. Would any German speaker like to help? &mdash; [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 03:09, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

:Did you not see a Cadena Ser (with all that ''that'' implies, I suppose) story datelined 12/3 on more or less the same issue? ("Ana Palacio sends out letters to all the embassies.") Would you like to see it? [[User:Hajor|&ndash;''Hajor'']] 03:32, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::If that were true it would be really disgusting. -- [[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 03:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::That [http://www.cadenaser.com/articulo.html?xref=20040313csrcsrnac_16&type=Tes&anchor= and more] is what Saturday's demonstrations are about. [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 05:02, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

:::El Pais reports that Aznar personally called newspaper directors on Friday evening to assure them that ETA was responsible. [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 05:41, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

[http://www.cadenaser.com/articulo.html?xref=20040312csrcsrnac_19&type=Tes This] is it. [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 03:42, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

:Reuters is also carrying the story, in English: [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040313/wl_nm/spain_explosions_ambassadors_dc_2 here]. -- [[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 03:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Recent Event Custom Message ==

We should have a "This article deals with a recent event... info is evolving quickly or may be outdated... please do not hesistate to update the page" custom msg thing. Any admins that can do this? I wonder why isn't there a msg like this already.

<nowiki>{{msg:recent}}</nowiki>

-- [[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 03:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Done. I've added it at <nowiki>{{msg:current}}</nowiki>, however. Also, you don't need to be an admin to do something like that. Just create an article at "MediaWiki:NAME" where NAME is, of course, whatever you wish to call it. For example, if you want to edit what I just created, go to [[MediaWiki:Current]]. [[User:RadicalBender|RadicalBender]] 05:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:: Wikkid, thanks :) -- [[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 05:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[[:2004 Madrid train bombings]] → {{no redirect|Madrid train bombings}} – Per [[Manchester Arena bombing]]. Already redirects here. [[User:Unreal7|Unreal7]] ([[User talk:Unreal7|talk]]) 18:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - No other multiple train bombings in Madrid. The [[July 1979 Madrid bombings]] didn't happen on trains, but train stations (two of them), and are far less known than the 2004 bombings. [[User:Prism55|Prism55]] ([[User talk:Prism55|talk]]) 15:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - "In the escalating violence, in 1979, one wing of the ETA bombed two Madrid train stations and the airport on the same day" ... but even without that, no benefit to any reader from removing year. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 17:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' essentially per IIO [[User:Red Slash|<span style="color:#FF4131;">Red</span>]] [[User talk:Red Slash|<b><span style="color:#460121;">Slash</span></b>]] 05:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. As IIO says, this could be ambiguous. And although [[WP:CONCISE]] would suggest omitting the year, there are far too many examples of articles where it is included, and is useful, that I think it's fine to keep it. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 11:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

----

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>

== How many days between Sept. 11, 2001 and March 11, 2004? ==

==Downsizing the article?==

As of this post, this article is around [[Kilobyte|110 KB]] of size by the text (47 KB) and the images (63 KB). This is harmful for low-speed modem visitors. I like pictures, so, could we start to crop down the article? For example, pointing out things like reactions to its own page? I dunno, something like [[March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks reactions]]. *shrug* --[[User:Maio|Maio]] 07:59, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to have subpages to the article? [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 08:07, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

The article says 911.

:We could do sth similar to the September 11, 2001 attacks. For starters, the days after could be put in a new page called [[March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks_reactions]] and the ''details'' of the investigation in [[March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks_reactions]]. [[User:Pfortuny|Pfortuny]] 08:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My calendar says 912: 19 days to the end of September 2001, plus October (31), November (30), and December (31) makes 111.

::The 9/11 attacks page are filled with useful facts and it's hard to navigate through so many articles. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']]

Then all of 2002 (365 days) and 2003 (3)5 more days) brings the total to 841.

:Cut the crap first. Statements like "On March 12, Basque TV station Euskal Telebista and the Basque newspaper Gara reported receiving notes from persons claiming to represent ETA and denying responsibility for the explosions. (CBC)" will be gone as soon as they find out for sure who did it. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 08:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then January (31) and February (29--a leap year) of 2004 brings the total to 901.

== The splitting suggestion. Please read ==

I have already suggested confining this article to the actual events of the bombings, and moving everything else to [[Responses to the March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks]]. The article is far too big and still growing, although I agree with Jiang that some of the instant-news-service content could now be cut. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 09:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then the event was the 11th day of March. That's 912.

:On my side, I trust Adam more than myself for doing it... I am sure he will do a great job... This is a decline of responsibilities, but... In the end, you are the Historian and I am only a Mathematician... :/ [[User:Pfortuny|Pfortuny]] 09:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there some Spanish convention at play here where you don't count the last day? [[User:Jeffreynye|Jeffreynye]] ([[User talk:Jeffreynye|talk]]) 16:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You're too kind, senor. I will do it if (a) there is a consensus that it should be done, (b) everyone else refrains from editing for a while, (c) I am not accused of being a fascist afterwards if I cut some superfluous content. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 09:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)