Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:45, 7 December 2006 editIgor21 (talk \| contribs)525 edits →New reference by Burgas00 ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 10:45, 11 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,871,807 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	*]
			{{Talk header}}
	*]
			{{Controversial}}
	*]
			{{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}}
	{{controversial}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=other\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{disaster management}}
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|terrorism=yes\|terrorism-imp=High\|importance=Mid\|serialkiller=yes\|serialkiller-imp=Mid}}
	{{archive box\|<center>] ] ] ] ] ] ]</center>
			{{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}}
	{{TrainsWikiProject\|class=B\|importance=mid\|small=yes}}
			{{Afd-merge from\|2004 Madrid train bombings suspects\|2004 Madrid train bombings suspects\|30 August 2024}}
			{{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." ==
	== Randroide Answers to ''"Next Step"'' ==

			I just have to ask, do we really need 15 sources for that statement? ] 06:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
	Guys, I do not see you taking steps to ].

			: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.--] 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
	I can not do this job because I always connect from "filtered" institutional net-access, and following those steps could result in new, undesired, controversial "truncation" of words by the software. I do not want that happenning.

			All three sources 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. ] (]) 14:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
	Could you please follow the instructions in the link I provided?. Thank you.] 10:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	== Randroide answers to ''New reference by Burgas00'' ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	] 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC) At last we agree on something!...of course that the new section is a good idea: The false "suicidal" terrorists from PRISA will also be included there.

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	Come oooooon, boys, '''start writing that section'''. I do not want all the kudos for myself: The new proposed article is, by now, an effort made only by me.
			*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.
	But remember: NPOV and sources, '''all''' the sources. Just like me citing "El País" in the section about the doubts about the genuineness of the 13th bomb. Cheers ] 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
	--] 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

			== Requested move 9 June 2018 ==
	Indeed, a good point. And all the remarks in COPE too. And the "moral certitudes" of Mariano Rajoy published in El Mundo.

			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	----
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <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 ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
	] 10:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I agree with you 100%, Larean.

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

			] → {{no redirect\|Madrid train bombings}} – Per ]. ] (]) 12:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
	] 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) What Randroide omits to mention on the section about the 13th bomb is that he only added balancing references when I insisted that he do so, the original version he created was entirely POV, as is much of the rest of the proposed article. Also, all the sources that he added from El Pais are only available to subscribers - NPOV it is not.
			*'''Oppose''' there have been other bombings ] (]) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
	----		----
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <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 ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->
	] 13:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) You are right, Southofwatford, in your "Randroide omits..." section.

			== Requested move 27 December 2019 ==
	If you have not subscription to "El País", I am sorry but that´s your problem. My "institutional" access also has some advantages, like paid access to "El País" (and many, many other publications and books). That´s one of the reasons for my exclusive use of "filtered" Internet accesss: It´s much easier for me to work here due to the easy availability of sources.

			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	Do you see?. The truncation of words is offsett (I think) by better sources.
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <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 ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''

	BTW, if you write under a "Randroide answers" section you are:
	*Invading "my" space. I do not mind, really. But you are doing it.
	*Risking new truncations on your messages. To avoid this, please write OUTSIDE "Randroide answers" sections.

	If you think that the proposed article is POV, work in it to make it NPOV. The article is not "mine".

			The result of the move request was: '''not moved''' to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. {{#if:\|<small>(])</small>\|{{#if:\|<small>(])</small>}}}} ]<small>]</small> 12:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
	----		----

			] → {{no redirect\|Madrid train bombings}} – Per ]. Already redirects here. ] (]) 18:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
	] 14:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I'll take the risk of you truncating the reply and put it here, it's very short. The issue is not whether I subscribe to El País, its whether the people who read an article in the English Misplaced Pages subscribe to it. All sources used should be accessible to all readers of the article, putting in a source that readers will not be able to see just so you can claim the article is NPOV is, to my mind, completely unreasonable.
			*'''Support''' - No other multiple train bombings in Madrid. The ] didn't happen on trains, but train stations (two of them), and are far less known than the 2004 bombings. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' essentially per IIO ] ] 05:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. As IIO says, this could be ambiguous. And although ] 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.  — ] (]) 11:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
	----		----
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>
	] 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

			== How many days between Sept. 11, 2001 and March 11, 2004? ==
	::''All sources used should be accessible to all readers of the article''

			The article says 911.
	Very funny, Southofwatford.

			My calendar says 912: 19 days to the end of September 2001, plus October (31), November (30), and December (31) makes 111.
	I am going to follow this joke of yours.

			Then all of 2002 (365 days) and 2003 (3)5 more days) brings the total to 841.
	*Please propose also the deletion of all books as sources, because, did you know?, there is always someone without this or that book.
	*Delete all references to TV or radio stations, because that user in Brazil has no TV and no radio at home.
	*Delete all the references in spanish, because, did you know?, there are users who know no spanish.

			Then January (31) and February (29--a leap year) of 2004 brings the total to 901.
	It´s a pleasure to read this kind of funny jokes, really. I had a good laugh.

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

	] 15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC) How strange that you should find it so funny, after all most of the sources we are providing should enable users to find out more information about what is being sourced, so to deliberately choose sources that require those users to pay to see the information is not funny, it's simply bizarre. Equally, in the English Misplaced Pages I would argue that choosing a Spanish or other foreign language source when an ''equally valid'' source exists in English does not make sense, except perhaps to those who are too busy laughing - your cynicism is evident in your response.

	----
	] 08:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Once you have finished wasting your time in '''personal attacks''' (''"cynic"'') against me, could you please explain us '''why''' you havent answered my section and '''why''' you have done nothing so far about the issue'''?'''.

	You are very bombastic with your ] sections and the like, but when is time to <u>''really''</u> do something, ].

	This is a common pattern in your behavior, Southofwatford. But I am not going to call you ''"cynic"''. You know: ], ] (and if you didn´t know, you know now).

	'''I really, really would like to see you''' doing something about ], '''or''' adding something, ''anything'' to ], '''or''' coming here with a new source '''or''' a new piece of data.

	, because someone could think that you are here only to engage with me.

	Burgass00 provided us a source, Larean with half dozen or a dozen of sources. So far, your "collaboration" here is to maintain us busy disputing with you.

	BTW: I did not ''"<u>deliberately</u> choose sources that require those users to pay to see the information"''. Again '''you fail''' ]. I just followed the links in my Internet access, which, yes, is filtered and truncates some words, but also gives me above average access to sources. You should be happy having a fellow wikipedian with privileged access to sources, Southofwatford, but you moan and groan about the issue. '''Why?'''. Following the ] policy this behaviour of you is a riddle for me.

	::Southofwatford wrote: ''Equally, in the English Misplaced Pages I would argue that choosing a Spanish or other foreign language source when an ''equally valid'' source exists in English does not make sense''

	Are you going follow this piece of advice of yours and going to delete all the assertions on the article based in sources in spanish, Southofwatford?. Or are you going to start searching for alternative sources in english?.

	I am not going to oppose that ''"interesting"'' course of action you suggested. Please, do it, Southofwatford: '''Put your money''' (i.e., your time) '''where your mouth is.'''

	----

	] 08:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Randroide and the rules – once again you wave the rules in the face of other users whilst failing to apply them to yourself. The whole of your response here could be considered a direct personal attack.

	I am, thankfully, not accountable to you or anyone else for how I freely choose to use what spare time I have. However, since you raised the question of why I am participating on this page I am happy to confirm that nothing has changed since the last time I responded on this issue; I continue to oppose the abuse of this article in Misplaced Pages for political objectives that were not achievable in the equivalent article in the Spanish Misplaced Pages. So no change there then.

	On good faith – you responded to a reasonable point raised by me by attempting to treat it as a big joke and making it completely clear that you couldn’t care less if other users are not able to access the sources you provide – I am afraid the presumption of good faith did not survive such a contemptuous response.

	On the issue of the RFC I would suggest that the archive pages you cited are a much more reliable and reputable source than the distorted account you try to present here.

	Your aggressive, bullying manner as usual does nothing to improve your case, and as usual I will remind you that I am not affected by it.

	----

	== New reference by Burgas00 ==

	Any comment on this?

	http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/policia/desbarata/montaje/sostener/teoria/conspirativa/torno/11-M/elpepunac/20061202elpepinac_14/Tes

	--] 18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

	----

	] 18:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Excellent job, Burgas00. This collaboration of yours is most welcome. I suggest you to wait a few days ("El Mundo" will also tell another version) a to add this history to ].

	...but if you want to add the text now, I am not going to object.

	Any sourced statement written in NPOV is welcome by me. Cheers.

	----

	--] 13:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

	Burgas00: ABC is being far more interesting than El Pais. What we know today is that at least two corrupt policemen conspired to plant evidence in FAVOUR of the conspiracy theory (they are accused by a judge of fabricating and denouncing a false crime), and that El Mundo swallowed the story whole... or worse: ABC goes as far as reporting that El Mundo would have been involved in the fabrication. There goes the credibility of El Mundo as a reliable source. At the very least, this shows the way El Mundo corroborates its stories.

	Yes, here is another article appeared on ABC on this trama policial. Quite embarassing really. http://www.abc.es/20061203/nacional-terrorismo/intervienen-documento-escrito-disena_200612030251.html

	--] 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

	----

	] 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Well the last place to put this would be the section on the 13th bomb, based on the published information there is absolutely no demonstrated connection between the two cases, which does not of course mean that El Mundo hasn't tried to invent one. Perhaps it should go in a section on "media interference in the judicial process"?

	----

	--] 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Yes, I was thinking about that. And that is a good section you are proposing Southofwatford.

	Anyone found anything on El Mundo's version of the story? The paper seems to be keeping suspiciously quiet about all of this.--] 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


	----

	--] 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

	El Mundo has answered with a predictable smokescreen, crying foul because a "key" person in the investigation (their informer, Parrilla) is in jail. They have also sent out another smokescreen with a completely absurd but perfectly well-timed complaint by Cartagena, the imam who was controlled by Parrilla. You can find the links here:

	http://foro.desiertoslejanos.com/viewtopic.php?id=191&p=8



	With due respect, I do not find these news as very imporant. We must not fall in their trap. What El Mundo is doing is so evident that the new revelations have the same relevance that a new proof for the earth being round. This issue can be good as a footnote in the discussion of the arbitration but I do not think it is convenient to include in the main article since discuss something is to accept that exists a doubt. All this must be put in the article about Pedro J because is more about him than about 11-M.--] 12:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


	----

	--] 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

	Igor, with respect, I think you are wrong. This is very important. It shows the "quality" of El Mundo's reporting, at the very least: they believe a single source without corroboration and they negotiate the contents of the news with corrupt policemen. And some sources tell me this is only the tip of the iceberg. El Mundo has basically destroyed its credibility. I think that is a significant event.

	And Pedro J. replies:
	http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/12/06/espana/1165418489.html?a=6a18a6aa166fe2881ed58b67897c617c&t=1165426325

	--] 17:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

	----

	] 10:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) This is the kind of defence that says "Nothing that I do can be considered to be wrong as long as I can suggest that somebody else somewhere has done something that is worse". El Mundo seems to have knowingly destroyed a criminal investigation in progress so that it can make an entirely unsubstantiated connection between it and the Madrid bombings. Just further confirmation that they are not acting as independent journalists reporting on events, thay have now become active, interested, participants in those events.

	----

			Is there some Spanish convention at play here where you don't count the last day? ] (]) 16:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
	This episode with the rest of episodes is very necesary to show that El Mundo does not belong to the set of "reliable sources" for any meaning of this expresion. However, in the final article, the presence of these people and their "investigations" (i.e. inmoral schemes, clumsy manipulations and intentional fabrications) should not have room. The main characters must be the victims, the killers, the people who helped the injured and the policemen who solved the case on-the-fly. The article about Pedro J is the place for explaining at lenght the feats of this suburbial citizen Kane.--] 12:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:45, 11 November 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2004 Madrid train bombings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A news item involving 2004 Madrid train bombings was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 March 2004.

Misplaced Pages

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 11, 2005, March 11, 2006, March 11, 2009, March 11, 2010, and March 11, 2014.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explosives Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Islam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
	This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jamal Zougam was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 August 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2004 Madrid train bombings. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The article 2004 Madrid train bombings suspects was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 August 2024 with a consensus to merge the content into 2004 Madrid train bombings. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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

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.--Igor21 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

All three sources 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. Penschy (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2004 Madrid train bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a 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. Dekimasuよ! 04:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

2004 Madrid train bombings → Madrid train bombings – Per Manchester Arena bombing. Unreal7 (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose there have been other bombings In ictu oculi (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 27 December 2019

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 12:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

2004 Madrid train bombings → Madrid train bombings – Per Manchester Arena bombing. Already redirects here. 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. 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. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose essentially per IIO Red Slash 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. — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

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

The article says 911.

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: