Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid attacks/Archive2

This talk refers to a drastically outdated version of this page; it has since been almost completely re-factored. Thus ... some of the comments below might not make a lot of sense...

Some suggestions for editors:

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.
Do not use an image width bigger than 250 pixels
Provide a caption to all images, this caption must be summarized while expanded on its Image: page

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

Archived discussions:
Archive 1

Contents

1 Title translation

2 Breaking up the article?

3 bomb outrages in peace time (Was: Lockerbie)

4 Jiang's opinion of article

9 "Worst peacetime bomb attack in Europe"

10 Copyvio

11 Commented-out passage from intro

12 Government misinformation

13 Downsizing the article?

14 The splitting suggestion. Please read

15 "terrorist"/NPOV

16 {{msg:current}}

17 Article division

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. -- Arwel 03:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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?

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.

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

Miguel 04:21, 2004 Mar 13 (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". Adam 05:23, 13 Mar 2004 (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. eiaccb 07:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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. Adam 08:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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. eiaccb 09:31, 13 Mar 2004 (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. 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?--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, Aftermath of the March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks. 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 :) --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. Adam 08:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I uploaded a new one. Is it any better? --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). This is the place to edit those news headers. 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. 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. --eiaccb 14:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

You guys edit so fast... :-) --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. // Rogper 16:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We're up to 190 and 1247... 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. 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 terrorist attack in a European country in modern times.

... 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. // 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. --Jia 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. 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. 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. –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.

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)[1] (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. fabiform | talk 23:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But can we know anything about the objectives at all?
ETA has not announced any objectives.
--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...

--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. --Moncrief 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

Me too. 3 to 1. --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). --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. 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. 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.
--Ruhrjung 01:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I also came here to suggest that the infobox has problems. I think the consensus is that there are problems with prose in such boxes. Let's see what's left after Adam has performed his surgery/butchery :-) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:23, 15 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). 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.
--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. Moncrief, 14 Mar 2004

I see it as a matter of credibility. Personally, I like the BBC-style and not the 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.)

--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. Moncrief, 14 Mar 2004

Maybe it needs some editing, yes. --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? - 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 1 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/13/EDGLU5JHTL1.DTL) Moncrief, 14 Mar 2004

A while back I qualified "worst terrorist attack in Europe since Lockerbie" by excluding state terrorist attacks like Srebenica (in which thousands of civilian Muslim men and boys were murdered by Serb paramilitaries as opposed to hundreds murdered when a Lybian agent bombed a civilian plan)--I'm defining terrorism as unlawful political violence, including all political violence against civilians. Although now I think about it, the Serb paramilitaries weren't Yugoslav National Army (JNA) soldiers of Serb nationality, so could be refered to as "Serbian-sponsored terrorists" (and may have been by the Bosnians, perhaps, I don't know). Perhaps the person who thought up the "worst terrorist attack in Europe" really meant Western Europe?

I disagree with Moncrief's oppinion that "the worst terrorist attack since World War II" excludes the Bosnian war, since "unlawful political violence" (such as war crimes) can be committed by governments too, not just non-government paramilitaries. (Although government soldiers have lawful combatant status and do not commit a crime if they attack enemy combatants, wheras as non-governments usually don't have or are that status, even if they are resisting foreign occupations, colonial domination or racist regimes in accordance with Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions)

KingAl86 2004-06-27 22:48 UTC

Copyvio

This page is now apparently a copyvio from the Associated Press. ie see an example AP-sourced website at: [2] (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V9574.AP-Spain-al-Qaida.html) --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. --Cantus 00:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm about to remove Image:MadridBlastMap.jpg from the article because of similar concerns. –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" [3] (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. 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. -- Cantus 03:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Government misinformation

The gist of this story (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,290496,00.html) 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? — 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? –Hajor 03:32, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

That and more (http://www.cadenaser.com/articulo.html?xref=20040313csrcsrnac_16&type=Tes&anchor=) is what Saturday's demonstrations are about. 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. Miguel 05:41, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

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

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

Downsizing the article?

As of this post, this article is around 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* --Maio 07:59, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

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

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. Pfortuny 08:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The 9/11 attacks page are filled with useful facts and it's hard to navigate through so many articles. --Jia ng

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. --Jia ng 08:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If it is true that the Spanish government lied through their teeth for 48 hours about ETA, the "crap" will belong in its own article about the political consequences of the attacks. Miguel 16:32, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

Protest turnout numbers are wrong (Las Palmas, for instance. Actual numbers were at least 200 000). And the black ribbon is not a ribbon of mourning. It is a symbol of the fight against terrorism. Same as the pink one is a symbol of the fight against AIDS. Rumpelstiltskin 09:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The black ribbon in Spain is the simplification of a black wreath which is used for mourning... There is nothing regarding terrorism with black colour. Where did you get that definition?

I have put this before the splitting part in order to have the discussion at the end. Sorry if this messes up thinkgs a little.Pfortuny 11:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. I should have said I was talking in a figurative way. Rumpelstiltskin 22:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The splitting suggestion. Please read

I have already suggested confining this article to the actual events of the bombings, and moving everything else to Aftermath of 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. Adam 09:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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... :/ Pfortuny 09:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think I can do a fair job of arranging information within an article and sectioning, but summarizing an article and moving the details to separate articles is way harder. Go, Adam. Miguel 16:35, 2004 Mar 14 (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. Adam 09:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. -- Cantus 09:40, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No fun if I we can't call you names Adam! :( From my POV, go ahead Führer Carr. (har har I called you names!) --Maio 13:48, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget to use msg:inuse, or I fear you'll get edit conflicts from people not reading this page. :) fabiform | talk 15:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"terrorist"/NPOV

Whil I have the greatest sympathies for the people of Spain, the victims of the attack in Madrid and their families, and while I consider these attacks to be acts of terrorism, I have removed the word "terrorist" and clarified or replaced it with "militant" in many places in this article. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter -- that doesn't justify the murder of civilians, of course, but we should be aware that there are multiple perspectives on events that may *seem* clear-cut to us. I have no desire to diminish these attacks or the weight of the wrong committed; I'm simply seeking to adhere to Wikipedia's established (and wise) NPOV policy. -- Seth Ilys 15:13, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see the problem with calling this event a terrorist attack. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." --Vikingstad 16:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vikingstad: I don't see a problem with calling it terrorism either -- personally. I think that they are terrorism. But at Wikipedia, we try to adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy which essentially says that when there are two sides two any issue, we present both cases without making a judgement as to which is right. There are clearly two sides here... that the Madrid attacks were "terrorism" and that they weren't. Thus we shouldn't label them as terrorism outright when some would contest that label. We *should* indicate that the prevalent view worldwide is that they are (and I think that the article does that very clearly), but calling them "terrorism" outright in Wikipedia clearly violates out NPOV policy. See NPOV for more information on this policy. -- Seth Ilys 16:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but you can only fight for freedom if you are not free, which according to reality is not the case either in central Spain or the Basque country. I am sorry I am stating facts not opinion by using "terrorism". And please do not use weasel expressions like "widely regarded as"... they make WP poor. Pfortuny 16:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, just in case, you couldn't talk about death because for some believers, death is the starting of life, so you ought to use the expression death in this world everywhere. Please. Pfortuny 16:57, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pfortuny: I'm not arguing that the ETA are freedom fighters. But: I live in the United States, where, in 1775, our colonial forces rose up against a legitimate government and overthrew British rule in acts which were characterized by some at the time as "terrorism" and "piracy," but which are now widely regarded as legitimiate and just. "Facts" change with time, like it or not. When writing in the article space, I try not to judge moral issues. There are multiple sides to just about every debate, and to be fair and complete, we should try to ensure that Wikipedia does not sides in politically loaded issues.

I'm not trying to justify the attacks in Madrid, or condone them, or sympathize with the murderers. I know it may be emotionally difficult for many to see the atrocity committed in on March 11 not called terrorism. But I'm simply trying to adhere to the NPOV policy, which is that when there's a dispute, we don't take sides. "Widely regarded as" is not intended to be a "weasel expression" but a statement of fact. -- Seth Ilys 17:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Come on, I know you are not trying to justify it. I am not trying to justify more than what common language today (and language is here and now) calls terrorism refers to these attacks. That's it. Pfortuny 17:08, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's a fact that the territory they want is part of Spain and that they don't want it to be part of Spain. That makes them freedom fighters in their own eyes if it's ETA. Anti-colonialists or whatever if it's Al Queda. Just like the case where a group of traitors in North America decided to rebel against their lawful king and form a country now called the USA. US people have a somewhat different view of those events. It's why letting the acts speak for themselves is the way to go. Jamesday 17:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I very much agree with Pfortuny on this. According to the accepted definition this was terrorism. Period. You can discuss whether terrorism is good or bad, or if it is needed to fight a more important case. But you can't dispute that is was terrorism. Another point here, is that the alleged Al Quaeda spokesperson says that "estos atentados son muy poco con lo que podrá ocurrir con lo que llamáis el terrorismo" (english "these attacks will seem very small compared to what can occur in what you call terrorism") [4] (http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2004/03/14/espana/1079223918.html) [5] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509556.stm). --Vikingstad 17:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm aware of two terrorists by that definition. Both were non-government actors who ordered a bombing which killed military and civilians. I know where to find them and how to identify them. Would you like to capture them? Would you like to apply the US policy of terrorist forever to them? They are identified here [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing). That act was carried out agains the armed forces of my country, acting on a peacekeeping mission blessed by international accords. Whether someone is a terrorist or freedom fighter depends on who is writing the history. Good luck with trying to get either individual described as even a former terrorist in our articles about them, even though the attack clearly falls within both definitions given here. If you want a senior terrorist leader who's still alive to capture and kill, here's one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Adams), featured on the front page of Wikipedia today. Jamesday 18:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thus Spake WordNet:

terrorism, n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Does this qualify as terrorism? Isn't there violence, against civilians, for political goals? -- your local Fennec 17:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By this very definition, the US and UK against Iraq, and almost every other country has engaged in terrorist activities. I see no problem condeming the violence against civilians in Madrid as terrorism, it's just that I would like some balance. If we only call one side by an adjective it deserves, that hardly qualifies as neutral in my books. -- Daniel H.

Not quite, notice that the definition states against civilians. AFAIK, the invasion of Iraq wasn't against civilians, although obviously, civilians have died as casualties of war. --Maio 15:12, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions are all well and good, but the fact is that people will contest that 11-M was a terrorist attack, just like it has been contested that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. We should present *undisputed* facts, not characterizations. -- Seth Ilys

OK, I give up editing this article: my peace of mind comes first. Call it bananas, as we mathematicians say, it is surely npov as it is a noun not an adjective. I hope Miguel does not despair from editing. Pfortuny 17:35, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In the end, I don't think anyone will question it being terrorism. But for the time being, that might be possible. Meanwhile, I hold it for reasonable, that Wikipedia make a moderate use of the term in this article.

--Ruhrjung 17:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just call the attacks "attacks" without qualifications. In spain we call ETA "an armed group", we don't even bother saying terrorism any more. In fact, enough people within Spain, including the majority of Basque natinalists, think that they are just thugs with no real political agenda any more other than their own continued existence. We can call the islamic groups allegedly involved in this "militant". This discussion is a lot of heat, little light, and a waste of valuable time that could be spend adding content to the encyclopedia. Miguel 17:39, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

Questions: Has anyone defended the Madrid bombings or suggested that they were anything other than terrorism? Other than, presumably, al-Qaida itself? Does any terrorist ever do anything other than pretend that their terrorist acts are not terrorist acts? If the answer to these questions is "No", in what circumstances can Wikipedia ever use the word terrorist? Answer: Never. This being so, Wikipedia's policy should say that and save us all a lot or arguing. Adam 23:35, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it's getting a little annoying people are repeatedly removing the word 'terrorist' as if it were taboo or unencyclopedic [sic]. The word exists, let's use it. --Cantus 00:39, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia's de facto policy is that words like terrorist and dictator can never be used because there will always be someone, somewhere who disputes them in any given case and they are therefore POV. Adam 00:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A morally bankrupt if not just plain wrong policy IMHO. PMA 01:18, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

To a certain extent, all political correctness borders on the morally bankrupt. The problem with words such as terrorism, dictator, fascist and genocide among others is that they are losing their meaning through over-use. With this understanding, we should attempt to find more descriptive and uncontroversial ways to describe things in Wikipedia articles. There is nothing wrong with producing scholarly writings in the social sciences which contain value judgements or value loaded terms, but Wikipedia cannot do that and should just present fact avoiding value judgements. Miguel 01:24, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it creates obscenities like calling the Madrid bombers or ETA "militants" when they are in fact terrorists. Euphemising evil is not acceptable, even in encyclopaedias, which cannot divorce themselves from the moral universe of the culture which produces them. Adam 02:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the current event message. Everyone knows this is a current event. It adds nothing to the article except to say "Don't trust this article" and is there for the benefit of writers, not our readers. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article division

I am now going to embark on dividing the article in two, as discussed above. Please be patient. Adam 09:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_attacks/Archive2"