User:Larean01/Atelier 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I suggest the use of different colors by different users to avoid the use of signatures.List of colours Mine is RED Randroide 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Other examples:
Suggested colour for Larean Suggested colour for Southofwhatford Suggested colour for igor21
title=March 2004 Madrid Train Bombings |image=ac.madrid2.jpg |caption=The scene of one of the Madrid bombings. |location=Madrid, Spain |target= Madrid Commuter Train System |date=11 March 2004 |time-begin=07:30 |time-end=08:00 |timezone=UTC+1 |type=backpacks |fatalities=191 |injuries=2050 |perps=Local cells of Islamic extremists I propose the addition of "according with spanish judiciary . Disputed by some spanish media". The removal is NOT a soud option, we must say (and source) SOMETHING about who is believed to be the perpetrator. I suggest "Local Islamist cells accused - trial to begin 2007" Mention to the dispute should be made. The accusation to the islamists had been strongly disputed, and that fact can not be deleted. I propose a telegraphic " Local Islamist cells accused - trial to begin 2007. Disputed." I do not see the islamist responsability as really disputed. Some people are doubting about certain parts of the indictment and there are some suggestions but not an alternative theory that can lead to say that "Local Islamist cell accused-Trial to begin in 2007" is not pure and real facts. IMO to say "accused" introduces more uncertainty that the one that exists in IRL It has been disputed, Igor21. Remenber the "Smoking gun". The lack of alternative theory means nothing, we are talking here about the "islamist" autorship being disputed, not about an alternative theoryIt can be disputed the authorship but the fact that islamists are accused and that the trial starts in 2007 it is not disputed (I hope you do not) I only ask, and this is a sine qua non, for the briefest mention of the dispute about the autorshipWe must be realistic. After the borax scandal, it is clear that the conspirationist are trying now to find relationship between ETA and the islamists more than continue doubting about the authorship that is cristal clear. If they doubt about authorship where is the point to the scandal since the person who has the borax was indicted? if the people indicted are innocents, why they cannot have borax? Wikipedia cannot be more papist than the pope The borax issue is one among dozens of disputed items, Igor21, I do not know why is so important here. There is a dispute, international media is talking about that dispute (see the section of proposed additions), and you can not hide that fact in the main Wikipedia article about this issueIt is important because means that the pro-conpirationists (not you because you are only a truth-finder without political links and acting only for the sake of wikipedia veracity) have finally accepted that the material authorship corresponds to the people that the judge Del Olmo says and from now on they will try to link them with ETA. This is a change in their tactics since up to now they were trying to exclude from the authorship the people accused by Del Olmo . The fact that authorship is being challenged is made crystal-clear in the body of the article. I don't see why we should include the "disputed" label. That a "local islamist cell" is charged and that the trial will begin in 2007 is NPOV and it's fact. Currently there are no other identified suspects. Not a single one. The Nitroglycerine issue makes the "local islamist cell" autorship impossible, Larean. According with relevant sources, the Indictment is baseless. You can disagree with those sources, but you can not disagree with the fact that relevant sources expresed serious doubts about the Indictment, and "Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly".}} Wrong. Islamist authorship is not made impossible by the use of a different explosive. For all we know fundamentalists could have used a nitroglycerine-based dynamite. But that is not the issue. The main issue is the tenses in your statement. It doesn't MAKE, because the "nitroglycerine issue" is far from having been proven. So you should use the conditional, in the following way:
IF it is found that nitroglycerine exploded in the trains, THEN Islamist authorship would be problematic (though not impossible). "IF". I love that word. Two simple letters, but they build the strongest wall in the world: the one that separates fiction from reality. You know, if the Abominable Snowman exists then the Loch Ness monster is possible. That kind of thing.
The 2004 Madrid train bombings (also known as 11-M, 3/11, 11/3 and M-11) were a series of coordinated bombings against the commuter train system of Madrid, Spain on the morning of 11 March 2004, which killed 191 people and wounded over 1700. [1]