![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
OLR was part of an organization that set off over a hundred bombs in US cities, that killed 5, and created fear, if not terror, in many ordinary citizens. Tens of thousands of workers were evacuated on August 2, 1977 from buildings in central Manhattan [1] after Terrorist bombs placed. If this person does not qualify to fall in the category of Terrorism in the United States, then who does? George Metesky, ahh he only placed some three dozen bombs? The weathermen?
Helpsome is an editor who tends to delete but not follow through with cogent arguments. If I can quote his words, he said nobody agrees with me. Why then are there other editors mediating? Why are reliable sources in agreement with us? Why did members of congress elected from districts representing over 90% of Americans agree with the term terrorist? Why did the Representative in congress for the People of Puerto Rico agree with the term? I think we can present the fact that some people see him as a freedom fighter, but there is a widespread opinion that the reason we know about OLR is because of his terrorist activities. Rococo1700 ( talk) 18:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, the reason I smeared you is because of the comments you have left, including the one that I cited above. Care to defend yourself? Next, there is a mediation ongoing on the use of the word terrorist to describe ORL. But there is little doubt that FALN would fall into most definitions of terrorism. Please see the mediation page for comments by Eudemis that point out how broadly the term terrorism is used in the press and literature to describe FALN. I mention the press, because we should attribute to the New York Times and Boston globe etc, a greater degree of neutrality in the question. That is in addition to resolutions in the US congress passing by over 90% of legislators that used the word terrorist to describe those offered clemency, including OLR as terrorists. Ultimately while the word makes you wince, the following is true: OLR was convicted of being part of a conspiracy, in which an organization, the FALN set off over a hundred bombs and killed five people. Most of the bombs were placed in public places. Thousands of persons had their lives threatened. They broke in at gunpoint into the offices of a presidential campaign and after taking lists of donors, they sent them threatening letters. I am not sure what is your definition of not belonging in the category of terrorism in the united states? what category do you suggest otherwise? Rococo1700 ( talk) 22:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The edit HERE is properly sourced and directly related to this subject. BTW, the editors are Outstanding Book Awards editors according to the book's publisher HERE. The Outstanding Book Award issue is not the basis for supplying that citation, however; award or not, the quote stands on its own, per WP:RS. As the editor in question stated in his edit summary HERE ("the source does still need to be good and reliable"), if there is objection as to the source's reliability, he can take it HERE. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You and Sarason were invited to joint mediation to sort out the bias of this article. I believe that your edit above is another example of your continued bias to plaster any and every petition for OLR's release, but yet you fail completely and have tried repeatedly to delete well-sourced and equally valid facts about OLR and violence and OLR's participation in a terrorist campaign.
You engage in edit wars, but will not join mediation. I am not sure what the policy of Wikipedia is, but I do not look on your behavior with much respect. Join the mediation! Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an easy way for you to fix all the problems in this article. Mediate a solution. Hey don't mediate with me if you don't want, mediate with Neosilber and Froglich, and others. Look you try to use procedure and threats, call me names: anything, anything not to discuss the issues. I can cite you an article in American Spectator, a US congress report, a monograph by Robert Belli, interviews with FBI agents, parole board statements, now even a testimony by the sole representative from Puerto Rico in Congress - all of whom state OLR is violent, but you Will not allow it, because of your bias. Again there is a forum for mediation on this article. There are multiple editors involved, get involved!!!!! Rococo1700 ( talk) 06:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The recent deletion was done without consensus, without notification except an ad hominem attack. You cannot state that some congressmen favor clemency when congress voted overwhelmingly to oppose clemency. This is part of the bias of the article. Do not change the present version without consensus.
As I stated before the article should be completely revised and we can start from a new one, since what we have now does not meet consensus. As always, I encourage all editors to this page to edit by consensus, with proper sourcing, and with an honest intent. Rococo1700 ( talk) 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Rococo, the mediation request was rejected and the DR guidelines with respect to Primary Sources are very clear. Yet again, you are ignoring the results of the processes (DRs and Mediation requests) which you initiated. At some point, you need to acknowledge and respect this process. If you don't acknowledge other editors, or DR guidelines, or Mediation results, or any entities that do not agree with you, it becomes impossible to work with you.
I urge you respectfully (I am not "threatening," I am urging) to please stop reverting other editors, and inserting Primary Source material, and ignoring all the feedback that you are receiving. Please consider this good faith advice. Sarason ( talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me Sarason, but you are reverting me. I do not take the rejection of mediation, as a rejection of my entries into the article. All those that joined mediation agreed with the changes. That does not give you the right to modify the article without consensus. You are reverting without seeking consensus. Again my preference is to rewrite the article in entirety. Rococo1700 ( talk) 05:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Rococo, please stop exercising PAGE OWNERSHIP of this article. Please do not revert sourced and cited editing, that clarifies the subject matter. It is becoming impossible to work with you on this page. Sarason ( talk) 14:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The article has been fully protected for 7 days due to the edit war. The protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment or using other techniques of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sarason, I am sorry to continue to disagree with you in using a the House Report as a source for the description of the nature of the conspiracy. The house report is not written by people with direct involvement. It involves multiple authors. It has as much validity as any of the other opinions voiced in the article. Again, I have compromised already by converting the fact that he was convicted of a violent crime, into an opinion that he was convicted of violence, even though I think a criminal conviction is not the same as a mere opinion, at least in the United States. If you want I can source such opinions to editorials about the clemency decision, but none of these has the details, the crisp verifiability of the house report.
I think people who hear that he was convicted only of a seditious conspiracy, probably speculate that OLR was merely singing dissident songs by a campfire. No, the nature of the conspiracy was the reason the convictions carried such heft. The conspiracy included participation in an organizaton that set off bombs that killed and maimed individuals. Now I have cited a number of ways we can arrive at that fact through many sources. I prefer the House report, and disagree that it is a primary document.
But hey, you are welcome to join in the referral I made for mediation. You previously offered some vague warnings against me, if I continued to try to edit this entry. I am offering you a forum in which we both can get this disagreement mediated. Why won't you work in that forum? Rococo1700 ( talk) 06:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group which fought to transform Puerto Rico into a communist state during the 1970
What bothers me with the word terrorist is that a person or group may be considered as terrorist by some people, groups and countries, while on the same hand these same people may be considered as heroes and patriots by other people. groups and countries. Therefore the word terrorist, which in my opinion is a POV term, should be removed as required by Wikipedia policy. Tony the Marine ( talk) 19:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, we have more progress to make on this article before we remove the neutrality banner. There should be a mention of what the plans for escape from prison entailed, included the weaponry he requested. I believe the nature of the conspiracy as detailed by his conviction should be spelled out. Rococo1700 ( talk) 05:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, if Mercy11 and Sarason wish to discuss facts, they should have joined mediation, rather than Sarason persisting in ad hominem attacks. Please by all means open a mediation for this article. I will persist in introducing facts into the article. You have warned me in the past, but the prior mediation which you declined to join would have been a perfect avenue to address your issues.
The introductory paragraph introduces the reader to the controversy: the prior paragraph only mentioned congressman who favor clemency. I introduce the fact that the vast majority of congress opposed clemency to OLR, including the prior congressman from Puerto Rico, who held the same post as Pierluisi. If Pierluisi's position is valid, then so is that of the majority of congress, from both parties, which represents the majority of OLR's fellow citizens. Also note prior versions of these paragraphs falsely stated only or mostly Republicans opposed clemency. It was an ordeal to get that false notion changed.
The conviction paragraph was flagged for expansion, I use both the NYT article and the Roberta Belli monograph to expand on the conspiracy of which OLR was a part of. Prior articles had inferred that somehow OLR was not involved in violent acts, but his connection to a bomb-making factory and his conspiracy to escape using bombs and weapons puts this issue to rest. He was part of a terrorist conspiracy (according to congress), or a violent conspiracy. If you need, we can cite the parole board for OLR and their summary of his conspiracy.
Again, Sarason, you need to argue the facts, not just delete well sourced material. In terms of Hammersbach's point, I think using OLR's own words should suffice as evidence, although I think the FALN documents should also be valid. Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sarason, how much have Mercy11 and you deleted in the last week? Anyway, why do I care. Also care to comment on the twitter issue? the nationality issue and how it was agreed upon?
Argue the facts, the data in the article. The paragraph describing the nature of his conviction has expanded? Any concerns?
The introductory paragraph is now more balanced. One option would be to delete all the specifics of the debate regarding clemency and leaving it to later paragraphs, but it has to be then balanced. You can not just delete all the advocacy against clemency and less incarceration, and if you are going to quote those who want to make him free, then it is worthy to quote those who advocate the opposite, specifically with regards to OLR, including high ranking officials, family members of those maimed or killed by the FALN campaigns, and/or law enforcement personnel in official depositions or reports.
I also think this is a good moment to clarify what the first sentence should include, can it include the words Marxist-Leninist, nationalist, terrorist, or revolutionary or all of the above in some fashion. Perhaps we can state that he is considered a nationalist revolutionary by some, and a Marxist-Leninist or Marxist Terrorist by others.
The other issue is whether we can describe that he was convicted for violent crimes. I think that was a great point of contention at the time of clemency. Seditious conspiracy sounds like a crime that could consist of a verbal whispering campaign against the government. In this case the conspiracy included acts such as bombings (some deadly), armed robberies, and threatened kidnappings. I disagree with a former editor's opinion that armed robbery is not a violent crime. The conviction was by a federal court, and the FBI, a federal agency that is part of the US Dept of Justice defines it so. I do not think this is synthesis or novel research. I could quote all sorts of opinions that he is violent, if the former conclusion is not upheld as fit for Wikipedia, but I would like to see multiple editors comment on this in a thoughtful way. Also I think this article may require some type of link that clarifies why the seditious conspiracy count was used in this case. It is relevant to the evaluation of his actions, and explains the severity of the sentence. The same applies to the convictions for conspiracy to escape. Rococo1700 ( talk) 13:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
What is the point point of creating so many headings for the same topic? What is your agenda by trying to insert the "Marxist" descriptor at the beginning of the text. I don't think nobody here with a straight face can argue that the Marxist ideals are the most important fact about the subject, is not even discussed on the article. Please iluminate me, not only by name calling or writing another wall of text about personal accusations or the behavior of another editors. Show me reliable sources were his Marxist ideals are notable. In other words, is the media covering this subject because he is a communist--Mccarthy style? Are his communist ideals generating news headline? The communist scare is so 1950's, please find something more relevant to discuss. -- Jmundo ( talk) 19:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I would be careful to disassociate "socialism" from "communism" or "marxism" when speaking of Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican Socialist Party is Marxist or Communist-linked; while the Puerto Rican Indepence Party is more aligned with European Social Democratic parties. Thus when OLR spoke in his closing statement that he was Socialist and Independentista, he elevaed them both to defining characteristics of himself. The available documents from the FALN engage in Marxist ideology to justify their bombings against industrial and economic interests. Rococo1700 ( talk) 21:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Neosiber, your last comment was written in good faith and I respect that. However, please consider that the comment indicates a reductive view of Oscar Lopez Rivera, and a highly subjective view. That is not a crime, you are a human being and certainly entitled to your own viewpoint. But please consider that all of the following, which are currently mentioned and cited in the article, give the life of OLR a much greater notability and scope than that which you have assigned to it:
Clearly, something is going on here that is worth examining. Please factor this into your perspective and approach to this page. Thanks. Sarason ( talk) 05:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Neosiber that the fact that he was convicted of criminal acts, that were part of a conspiracy that killed 5 innocent citizens and terrorized thousands has to be relevant. In addition, the opinion of congress and of informed citizens has weight. Another point of the debate here is that JMundo says that I should join the debate, that is fine, but as many points above show, Mercy11 is not interested in debating facts, but plasters meaningless WP banners, while blatantly ignoring when those are invoked against him. Examples: nationality label, twitter campaign, etc. Finally, I would say to Jmundo: dude, there was a mediation offered and declined by Sarason and Mercy11, and we are back to the same problem that one makes changes and they (and you) delete without making an argument. Now why does the opinion of one congressman outweigh resolutions of congress supported by 90% of the legislators. It is not balanced, dude? But I am willing to hear your argument, but will not just abide by your arbitrary deletion.
Again if you or Mercy11 or Sarason wish to mediate with us, I am in agreement. In addition, I think Neosiber's approach to this article using a format based on individuals with similar infamy, political terrorism ties, and controversy: I was thinking of actions by US citizens, and would pick on individuals who were convicted of terrorist or anti-government acts prior to 2001, for example, Leon Peltier, Omar Abdel-Rahman come to mind, but one could also use the Unabomber.
JMundo join the discussion, or better yet a mediation, do not just delete. Rococo1700 ( talk) 19:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
If we are editing by consensus, as we are bound to do, then you do NOT have consensus from me that "the House report serves as a verifiable, secondary source." It is NOT a secondary source. It is a primary source.
Let's see what other editors, who have worked on this page for years, have to say. Let's also see the Wikipedia definition of "primary" and "secondary" sources. I believe they are quite clear with respect to this issue, of government reports as primary sources. Sarason ( talk) 04:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Rococo, you have these matters opened at WP:DR/N - HERE. Please do not keep arguing both old and current (and now also new) matters here in a loose cannon fashion; it doesn't help anyone. The place to discuss this now is at the DR/N. Your multitude of complaints plus your, no offense, wall of texts are not indicative of a dialogue. Please tone down you arguments. This is not a court of law where we re-try individuals that are currently paying their debt to society in prison. At this point the DR/N is the place to address this dispute; not here. Thank you. Mercy11 ( talk) 15:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
We have waited for almost two days but have recieved no inputs from the WikiProject Criminal Biography Team. Although this does not rule out any future involvements, lets get started. ... Closed as stale. Can be re-opened if needed. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I was busy traveling and did not respond to the comments in a timely fashion, again ultimately speed is not the determinant of correctness. In addition, you dismiss the fact that the DR did not address the present source. It is not true to say that Wikishagnik commented on the House report. He did not. He used to at least two biased and one poor secondary sources: the Joy James and Huffington Post Blog to justify his argument. He may have a different opinion now. Again, my points remain that I do not wish to change Reverend Desmond Tutu's or Tito Kayak's opinion nor should those ideas be removed from the text. My problem is that you remove, among others the overwhelming opinion of the congress of the United States, that clemency should not have been offered to OLR, and one of the main reasons for that is that he was convicted of what the US Department of Justice and the Federal Judiciary defines as violent crimes, and since crimes are legally defined, that is what they are. Next the details of the seditious conspiracy are important for persons to evaluate when understanding why Congress and others oppose clemency. Again these are facts established in a court of law. There is no justification for removing these facts from the article. Again, the repeated deletions of these facts by Jmundo and Mercy11 represent the furthering of a biased agenda, that excludes a true discussion of the facts. I am not going to be traveling anywhere. Please argue the facts. Tell me why armed robbery is not a violent crime and thus why OLR, who was convicted of armed robbery by the Federal Judiciary, and I have provided plenty of citations that substantiate this, is not a violent criminal. You may not like the term, but it is, for you, and inconvenient fact. For example, tell me which source you would feel best corroborates this. Also you neglect the fact that others have considered this article biased. Rococo1700 ( talk) 22:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Our time is as valuable as yours, Rococo1700. Every time a DR, or an editorial consensus, or a "request for an edit despite the block on this page" go against you, you try to bury that fact with an enormous filibuster. You think that other editors will not trace the history of our discussion and your attempts to distort it. I'm not going to waste any more time with your filibuster, dissembling and bad faith. I will edit this page by consensus, and other editors will do the same. Sarason ( talk) 02:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I would think that my agreement to remove the Puerto Rican Citizenship nationality that was being inserted by Mercy11 was a form of consensus. You are distorting the reality. I insert facts, Mercy11 and Jmundo delete them. They don't look for consensus. rather than ad hominem attacks, you need to discuss the facts.
For example, since the Department of Justice of the United States Federal Government defines robbery as a violent crime.[ [7] and OLR was convicted of use of force to commit armed robbery (numerous citations above). Then can we agree that OLR is a violent criminal?
This is straighfoward. If this is not enough for you we can talk about the FALN escape plot (Chicago Tribune 02-27-1988 article by William B Crawford Jr) and debate whether he was convicted there of a violent crime. I have been more than willing to discuss these facts, but all that Jmundo and Mercy11 say is that the facts don't exist or can't be placed in the article. That is not consensus. Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I did get involved, and expressed my views in the mediation forum. The request for mediation was rejected. [8]
I reverted a recent edit which cited "Mediation" as the basis for the edit. The mediation was rejected, and this edit was (yet again) the same type of Primary Source edit that has been rejected in DRs, by editors on this page, and by Wikipedia policy.
As always, I encourage all editors to this page to edit by consensus, with proper sourcing, and with an honest intent.
Sarason ( talk) 18:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
material, and failed to allow such edits is they did not meet his point of view. But anyway, my main concern is for him to argue the facts in the article. Rococo1700 ( talk) 02:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The material is well sourced and is how other similar pages are done. In addition stop abusing WP, it's getting ridiculous how much you use them when they aren't even relevant. Neosiber ( talk) 10:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason why the FALN should not be in the lead of the article, with a brief explanation of what the organization was. When I search Oscar Lopez Rivera Tribune in Google, the top search result is a Chicago Tribune page with 10 different articles by 3 different authors on Faln. The titles read:
Thus in the Chicago Tribune 90% of the articles on this first page obtained by using OLR in search, included FALN in title, 100% had it in title or first sentence.
A similar search using Oscar Lopez Rivera New York Times, identifies an 02/10/2011 article whose first mention of OLR cites: OLR...is the last remaining member of the radical group known as the FALN. Searching within NYT for OLR identifies a 08/09/1999 whose first reference to OLR is Two other jailed members of the radical group, known as FALN. I think all these observations are substantial support for inclusion of FALN and what it is, in the introduction paragraph. Rococo1700 ( talk) 01:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Also a warning to Neosiber, and others, Mercy11 and Sarason are not interested in discussing content, this was evident from their unwillingness to enter mediation. They are most happy in tying up the discussion in WP garbage, and try to lure you into name-calling. Do not fall into their trap. Keep the arguments on the facts and sources. That is their weak point. Rococo1700 ( talk) 01:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Address the content.
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
OLR was part of an organization that set off over a hundred bombs in US cities, that killed 5, and created fear, if not terror, in many ordinary citizens. Tens of thousands of workers were evacuated on August 2, 1977 from buildings in central Manhattan [1] after Terrorist bombs placed. If this person does not qualify to fall in the category of Terrorism in the United States, then who does? George Metesky, ahh he only placed some three dozen bombs? The weathermen?
Helpsome is an editor who tends to delete but not follow through with cogent arguments. If I can quote his words, he said nobody agrees with me. Why then are there other editors mediating? Why are reliable sources in agreement with us? Why did members of congress elected from districts representing over 90% of Americans agree with the term terrorist? Why did the Representative in congress for the People of Puerto Rico agree with the term? I think we can present the fact that some people see him as a freedom fighter, but there is a widespread opinion that the reason we know about OLR is because of his terrorist activities. Rococo1700 ( talk) 18:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, the reason I smeared you is because of the comments you have left, including the one that I cited above. Care to defend yourself? Next, there is a mediation ongoing on the use of the word terrorist to describe ORL. But there is little doubt that FALN would fall into most definitions of terrorism. Please see the mediation page for comments by Eudemis that point out how broadly the term terrorism is used in the press and literature to describe FALN. I mention the press, because we should attribute to the New York Times and Boston globe etc, a greater degree of neutrality in the question. That is in addition to resolutions in the US congress passing by over 90% of legislators that used the word terrorist to describe those offered clemency, including OLR as terrorists. Ultimately while the word makes you wince, the following is true: OLR was convicted of being part of a conspiracy, in which an organization, the FALN set off over a hundred bombs and killed five people. Most of the bombs were placed in public places. Thousands of persons had their lives threatened. They broke in at gunpoint into the offices of a presidential campaign and after taking lists of donors, they sent them threatening letters. I am not sure what is your definition of not belonging in the category of terrorism in the united states? what category do you suggest otherwise? Rococo1700 ( talk) 22:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The edit HERE is properly sourced and directly related to this subject. BTW, the editors are Outstanding Book Awards editors according to the book's publisher HERE. The Outstanding Book Award issue is not the basis for supplying that citation, however; award or not, the quote stands on its own, per WP:RS. As the editor in question stated in his edit summary HERE ("the source does still need to be good and reliable"), if there is objection as to the source's reliability, he can take it HERE. Mercy11 ( talk) 01:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You and Sarason were invited to joint mediation to sort out the bias of this article. I believe that your edit above is another example of your continued bias to plaster any and every petition for OLR's release, but yet you fail completely and have tried repeatedly to delete well-sourced and equally valid facts about OLR and violence and OLR's participation in a terrorist campaign.
You engage in edit wars, but will not join mediation. I am not sure what the policy of Wikipedia is, but I do not look on your behavior with much respect. Join the mediation! Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an easy way for you to fix all the problems in this article. Mediate a solution. Hey don't mediate with me if you don't want, mediate with Neosilber and Froglich, and others. Look you try to use procedure and threats, call me names: anything, anything not to discuss the issues. I can cite you an article in American Spectator, a US congress report, a monograph by Robert Belli, interviews with FBI agents, parole board statements, now even a testimony by the sole representative from Puerto Rico in Congress - all of whom state OLR is violent, but you Will not allow it, because of your bias. Again there is a forum for mediation on this article. There are multiple editors involved, get involved!!!!! Rococo1700 ( talk) 06:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The recent deletion was done without consensus, without notification except an ad hominem attack. You cannot state that some congressmen favor clemency when congress voted overwhelmingly to oppose clemency. This is part of the bias of the article. Do not change the present version without consensus.
As I stated before the article should be completely revised and we can start from a new one, since what we have now does not meet consensus. As always, I encourage all editors to this page to edit by consensus, with proper sourcing, and with an honest intent. Rococo1700 ( talk) 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Rococo, the mediation request was rejected and the DR guidelines with respect to Primary Sources are very clear. Yet again, you are ignoring the results of the processes (DRs and Mediation requests) which you initiated. At some point, you need to acknowledge and respect this process. If you don't acknowledge other editors, or DR guidelines, or Mediation results, or any entities that do not agree with you, it becomes impossible to work with you.
I urge you respectfully (I am not "threatening," I am urging) to please stop reverting other editors, and inserting Primary Source material, and ignoring all the feedback that you are receiving. Please consider this good faith advice. Sarason ( talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me Sarason, but you are reverting me. I do not take the rejection of mediation, as a rejection of my entries into the article. All those that joined mediation agreed with the changes. That does not give you the right to modify the article without consensus. You are reverting without seeking consensus. Again my preference is to rewrite the article in entirety. Rococo1700 ( talk) 05:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Rococo, please stop exercising PAGE OWNERSHIP of this article. Please do not revert sourced and cited editing, that clarifies the subject matter. It is becoming impossible to work with you on this page. Sarason ( talk) 14:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The article has been fully protected for 7 days due to the edit war. The protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment or using other techniques of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sarason, I am sorry to continue to disagree with you in using a the House Report as a source for the description of the nature of the conspiracy. The house report is not written by people with direct involvement. It involves multiple authors. It has as much validity as any of the other opinions voiced in the article. Again, I have compromised already by converting the fact that he was convicted of a violent crime, into an opinion that he was convicted of violence, even though I think a criminal conviction is not the same as a mere opinion, at least in the United States. If you want I can source such opinions to editorials about the clemency decision, but none of these has the details, the crisp verifiability of the house report.
I think people who hear that he was convicted only of a seditious conspiracy, probably speculate that OLR was merely singing dissident songs by a campfire. No, the nature of the conspiracy was the reason the convictions carried such heft. The conspiracy included participation in an organizaton that set off bombs that killed and maimed individuals. Now I have cited a number of ways we can arrive at that fact through many sources. I prefer the House report, and disagree that it is a primary document.
But hey, you are welcome to join in the referral I made for mediation. You previously offered some vague warnings against me, if I continued to try to edit this entry. I am offering you a forum in which we both can get this disagreement mediated. Why won't you work in that forum? Rococo1700 ( talk) 06:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group which fought to transform Puerto Rico into a communist state during the 1970
What bothers me with the word terrorist is that a person or group may be considered as terrorist by some people, groups and countries, while on the same hand these same people may be considered as heroes and patriots by other people. groups and countries. Therefore the word terrorist, which in my opinion is a POV term, should be removed as required by Wikipedia policy. Tony the Marine ( talk) 19:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, we have more progress to make on this article before we remove the neutrality banner. There should be a mention of what the plans for escape from prison entailed, included the weaponry he requested. I believe the nature of the conspiracy as detailed by his conviction should be spelled out. Rococo1700 ( talk) 05:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, if Mercy11 and Sarason wish to discuss facts, they should have joined mediation, rather than Sarason persisting in ad hominem attacks. Please by all means open a mediation for this article. I will persist in introducing facts into the article. You have warned me in the past, but the prior mediation which you declined to join would have been a perfect avenue to address your issues.
The introductory paragraph introduces the reader to the controversy: the prior paragraph only mentioned congressman who favor clemency. I introduce the fact that the vast majority of congress opposed clemency to OLR, including the prior congressman from Puerto Rico, who held the same post as Pierluisi. If Pierluisi's position is valid, then so is that of the majority of congress, from both parties, which represents the majority of OLR's fellow citizens. Also note prior versions of these paragraphs falsely stated only or mostly Republicans opposed clemency. It was an ordeal to get that false notion changed.
The conviction paragraph was flagged for expansion, I use both the NYT article and the Roberta Belli monograph to expand on the conspiracy of which OLR was a part of. Prior articles had inferred that somehow OLR was not involved in violent acts, but his connection to a bomb-making factory and his conspiracy to escape using bombs and weapons puts this issue to rest. He was part of a terrorist conspiracy (according to congress), or a violent conspiracy. If you need, we can cite the parole board for OLR and their summary of his conspiracy.
Again, Sarason, you need to argue the facts, not just delete well sourced material. In terms of Hammersbach's point, I think using OLR's own words should suffice as evidence, although I think the FALN documents should also be valid. Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sarason, how much have Mercy11 and you deleted in the last week? Anyway, why do I care. Also care to comment on the twitter issue? the nationality issue and how it was agreed upon?
Argue the facts, the data in the article. The paragraph describing the nature of his conviction has expanded? Any concerns?
The introductory paragraph is now more balanced. One option would be to delete all the specifics of the debate regarding clemency and leaving it to later paragraphs, but it has to be then balanced. You can not just delete all the advocacy against clemency and less incarceration, and if you are going to quote those who want to make him free, then it is worthy to quote those who advocate the opposite, specifically with regards to OLR, including high ranking officials, family members of those maimed or killed by the FALN campaigns, and/or law enforcement personnel in official depositions or reports.
I also think this is a good moment to clarify what the first sentence should include, can it include the words Marxist-Leninist, nationalist, terrorist, or revolutionary or all of the above in some fashion. Perhaps we can state that he is considered a nationalist revolutionary by some, and a Marxist-Leninist or Marxist Terrorist by others.
The other issue is whether we can describe that he was convicted for violent crimes. I think that was a great point of contention at the time of clemency. Seditious conspiracy sounds like a crime that could consist of a verbal whispering campaign against the government. In this case the conspiracy included acts such as bombings (some deadly), armed robberies, and threatened kidnappings. I disagree with a former editor's opinion that armed robbery is not a violent crime. The conviction was by a federal court, and the FBI, a federal agency that is part of the US Dept of Justice defines it so. I do not think this is synthesis or novel research. I could quote all sorts of opinions that he is violent, if the former conclusion is not upheld as fit for Wikipedia, but I would like to see multiple editors comment on this in a thoughtful way. Also I think this article may require some type of link that clarifies why the seditious conspiracy count was used in this case. It is relevant to the evaluation of his actions, and explains the severity of the sentence. The same applies to the convictions for conspiracy to escape. Rococo1700 ( talk) 13:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
What is the point point of creating so many headings for the same topic? What is your agenda by trying to insert the "Marxist" descriptor at the beginning of the text. I don't think nobody here with a straight face can argue that the Marxist ideals are the most important fact about the subject, is not even discussed on the article. Please iluminate me, not only by name calling or writing another wall of text about personal accusations or the behavior of another editors. Show me reliable sources were his Marxist ideals are notable. In other words, is the media covering this subject because he is a communist--Mccarthy style? Are his communist ideals generating news headline? The communist scare is so 1950's, please find something more relevant to discuss. -- Jmundo ( talk) 19:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I would be careful to disassociate "socialism" from "communism" or "marxism" when speaking of Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican Socialist Party is Marxist or Communist-linked; while the Puerto Rican Indepence Party is more aligned with European Social Democratic parties. Thus when OLR spoke in his closing statement that he was Socialist and Independentista, he elevaed them both to defining characteristics of himself. The available documents from the FALN engage in Marxist ideology to justify their bombings against industrial and economic interests. Rococo1700 ( talk) 21:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Neosiber, your last comment was written in good faith and I respect that. However, please consider that the comment indicates a reductive view of Oscar Lopez Rivera, and a highly subjective view. That is not a crime, you are a human being and certainly entitled to your own viewpoint. But please consider that all of the following, which are currently mentioned and cited in the article, give the life of OLR a much greater notability and scope than that which you have assigned to it:
Clearly, something is going on here that is worth examining. Please factor this into your perspective and approach to this page. Thanks. Sarason ( talk) 05:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Neosiber that the fact that he was convicted of criminal acts, that were part of a conspiracy that killed 5 innocent citizens and terrorized thousands has to be relevant. In addition, the opinion of congress and of informed citizens has weight. Another point of the debate here is that JMundo says that I should join the debate, that is fine, but as many points above show, Mercy11 is not interested in debating facts, but plasters meaningless WP banners, while blatantly ignoring when those are invoked against him. Examples: nationality label, twitter campaign, etc. Finally, I would say to Jmundo: dude, there was a mediation offered and declined by Sarason and Mercy11, and we are back to the same problem that one makes changes and they (and you) delete without making an argument. Now why does the opinion of one congressman outweigh resolutions of congress supported by 90% of the legislators. It is not balanced, dude? But I am willing to hear your argument, but will not just abide by your arbitrary deletion.
Again if you or Mercy11 or Sarason wish to mediate with us, I am in agreement. In addition, I think Neosiber's approach to this article using a format based on individuals with similar infamy, political terrorism ties, and controversy: I was thinking of actions by US citizens, and would pick on individuals who were convicted of terrorist or anti-government acts prior to 2001, for example, Leon Peltier, Omar Abdel-Rahman come to mind, but one could also use the Unabomber.
JMundo join the discussion, or better yet a mediation, do not just delete. Rococo1700 ( talk) 19:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
If we are editing by consensus, as we are bound to do, then you do NOT have consensus from me that "the House report serves as a verifiable, secondary source." It is NOT a secondary source. It is a primary source.
Let's see what other editors, who have worked on this page for years, have to say. Let's also see the Wikipedia definition of "primary" and "secondary" sources. I believe they are quite clear with respect to this issue, of government reports as primary sources. Sarason ( talk) 04:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Rococo, you have these matters opened at WP:DR/N - HERE. Please do not keep arguing both old and current (and now also new) matters here in a loose cannon fashion; it doesn't help anyone. The place to discuss this now is at the DR/N. Your multitude of complaints plus your, no offense, wall of texts are not indicative of a dialogue. Please tone down you arguments. This is not a court of law where we re-try individuals that are currently paying their debt to society in prison. At this point the DR/N is the place to address this dispute; not here. Thank you. Mercy11 ( talk) 15:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
We have waited for almost two days but have recieved no inputs from the WikiProject Criminal Biography Team. Although this does not rule out any future involvements, lets get started. ... Closed as stale. Can be re-opened if needed. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I was busy traveling and did not respond to the comments in a timely fashion, again ultimately speed is not the determinant of correctness. In addition, you dismiss the fact that the DR did not address the present source. It is not true to say that Wikishagnik commented on the House report. He did not. He used to at least two biased and one poor secondary sources: the Joy James and Huffington Post Blog to justify his argument. He may have a different opinion now. Again, my points remain that I do not wish to change Reverend Desmond Tutu's or Tito Kayak's opinion nor should those ideas be removed from the text. My problem is that you remove, among others the overwhelming opinion of the congress of the United States, that clemency should not have been offered to OLR, and one of the main reasons for that is that he was convicted of what the US Department of Justice and the Federal Judiciary defines as violent crimes, and since crimes are legally defined, that is what they are. Next the details of the seditious conspiracy are important for persons to evaluate when understanding why Congress and others oppose clemency. Again these are facts established in a court of law. There is no justification for removing these facts from the article. Again, the repeated deletions of these facts by Jmundo and Mercy11 represent the furthering of a biased agenda, that excludes a true discussion of the facts. I am not going to be traveling anywhere. Please argue the facts. Tell me why armed robbery is not a violent crime and thus why OLR, who was convicted of armed robbery by the Federal Judiciary, and I have provided plenty of citations that substantiate this, is not a violent criminal. You may not like the term, but it is, for you, and inconvenient fact. For example, tell me which source you would feel best corroborates this. Also you neglect the fact that others have considered this article biased. Rococo1700 ( talk) 22:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Our time is as valuable as yours, Rococo1700. Every time a DR, or an editorial consensus, or a "request for an edit despite the block on this page" go against you, you try to bury that fact with an enormous filibuster. You think that other editors will not trace the history of our discussion and your attempts to distort it. I'm not going to waste any more time with your filibuster, dissembling and bad faith. I will edit this page by consensus, and other editors will do the same. Sarason ( talk) 02:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I would think that my agreement to remove the Puerto Rican Citizenship nationality that was being inserted by Mercy11 was a form of consensus. You are distorting the reality. I insert facts, Mercy11 and Jmundo delete them. They don't look for consensus. rather than ad hominem attacks, you need to discuss the facts.
For example, since the Department of Justice of the United States Federal Government defines robbery as a violent crime.[ [7] and OLR was convicted of use of force to commit armed robbery (numerous citations above). Then can we agree that OLR is a violent criminal?
This is straighfoward. If this is not enough for you we can talk about the FALN escape plot (Chicago Tribune 02-27-1988 article by William B Crawford Jr) and debate whether he was convicted there of a violent crime. I have been more than willing to discuss these facts, but all that Jmundo and Mercy11 say is that the facts don't exist or can't be placed in the article. That is not consensus. Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I did get involved, and expressed my views in the mediation forum. The request for mediation was rejected. [8]
I reverted a recent edit which cited "Mediation" as the basis for the edit. The mediation was rejected, and this edit was (yet again) the same type of Primary Source edit that has been rejected in DRs, by editors on this page, and by Wikipedia policy.
As always, I encourage all editors to this page to edit by consensus, with proper sourcing, and with an honest intent.
Sarason ( talk) 18:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
material, and failed to allow such edits is they did not meet his point of view. But anyway, my main concern is for him to argue the facts in the article. Rococo1700 ( talk) 02:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The material is well sourced and is how other similar pages are done. In addition stop abusing WP, it's getting ridiculous how much you use them when they aren't even relevant. Neosiber ( talk) 10:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason why the FALN should not be in the lead of the article, with a brief explanation of what the organization was. When I search Oscar Lopez Rivera Tribune in Google, the top search result is a Chicago Tribune page with 10 different articles by 3 different authors on Faln. The titles read:
Thus in the Chicago Tribune 90% of the articles on this first page obtained by using OLR in search, included FALN in title, 100% had it in title or first sentence.
A similar search using Oscar Lopez Rivera New York Times, identifies an 02/10/2011 article whose first mention of OLR cites: OLR...is the last remaining member of the radical group known as the FALN. Searching within NYT for OLR identifies a 08/09/1999 whose first reference to OLR is Two other jailed members of the radical group, known as FALN. I think all these observations are substantial support for inclusion of FALN and what it is, in the introduction paragraph. Rococo1700 ( talk) 01:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Also a warning to Neosiber, and others, Mercy11 and Sarason are not interested in discussing content, this was evident from their unwillingness to enter mediation. They are most happy in tying up the discussion in WP garbage, and try to lure you into name-calling. Do not fall into their trap. Keep the arguments on the facts and sources. That is their weak point. Rococo1700 ( talk) 01:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Address the content.
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)