Talk:Oscar López Rivera

Bias?

I don't know which tag to add, but this is obviously a very biased article. Or should I say, "biased" article?

Article needs bias removed

I can't find the edit button on this page, but many biased statements need to be removed.

Artcile name

In standard Spanish nomenclature, the first surname is the principal name by which the person is known. Justiciasocial (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A well, I fixed the move, but it seems to have been mostly a copyvio anyways. I've resored the original stub, but that needs vast improvement and sourcing. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

edit warring rude IP

can the edit warring IP who is calling people names come here now and discuss before you get blocked--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please learn how to type proper grammar? Anyway, I provided a source which proves that clemency was offered on August 11, 1999. Not September 11, 1999. The source also proves that Oscar refused clemency. Despite this, Mercy11 keeps reverting the source and claiming that Oscar was not offered clemency. This is false. What's the problem? I'm just trying to add correct information. Read the source if you don't believe me.

http://www.tlahui.com/politic/politi99/politi8/pr8-30.htm --70.127.202.197 (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is you continued to edit war rather than obey WP:BRD and came here first after he reverted you, and you were rude to him, wikipedia does not accept insults and personal attacks--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This matter has moved to: here. Please follow the link if you wish to participate.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.

Hi Mercy I can't get to it now from where I'm working but I'll read it later. --Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

POV in the "Political Prisoner" section

This section reads like it is a little one-sided. It should probably get a rewrite. NickCT (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your claim of POV tag and provided details in my edit summaries. My name is Mercy11 (talk), and I approve this message.

Reversal of edits

Reverted THESE edits by User: Froglich with the explanations provided my edits summaries, mostly due to violations of WP:NPOV and WP:V policies (also apparent unfamilarity with the "For year month day" template). These edits would require citations and compliance with WP:NPOV. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I was unfamiliar with the template, so you have that one. The POV in the article at present, however, is severe; and strays over into outright propaganda. How are we (as a Wikipedia article) arriving at the conclusion that a person convicted of bombings and armed robbery meets the definition of a "political" prisoner? As for taking the FALN reference back out of the lead, that's as odd as writing an article for Osama bin Laden which relegates any neutered mention of Al Qaeda or terrorism several pages down.--Froglich (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Entire article is POV.

I just came across this article and from just reading a few sections it is clear that it is very POV. Entire article needs to be rewritten.Neosiber (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; and the "other 12 prisoners" own articles are the exact same cut-n-pasted boilerplate propaganda.--Froglich (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole political prisoners section needs to be removed, it is incredibly biased. I would like more independent editors to chime in on the matter. From reading the talk page, it seems there is a lot of heated rhetoric so I would like for more editors to be involved. Neosiber (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Simply find sources to the contrary and put them in. Per WP:NPOV, that's how you neutralize an article you perceive to be POV. Removing sections that are properly sourced is not, according to , how you do it. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

It's a little more complex than that, I'm hoping more independent editors chime in on the matter. Neosiber (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The article's glaring problem is that, rather than a serious bio-piece detailing the career of a pro-Soviet revolutionary bomber who fought to turn his birthplace into a Russian satellite during the Cold War, it is instead a sanitized puff-piece of pro-FALN sympathizer sound-bites (the majority of which frankly aren't that notable given that all criminals, no matter how heinous, have their less-than-credible supporters).--Froglich (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with it, so we should build a consensus, who votes to delete the political prisoner section? He isn't one, so it really doesn't belong on here. Neosiber (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I recommend dynamite. Kablooey. OK, more seriously: take the format of any decently-written (i.e., not encrusted with apologetics) article of a similar Cold War bomber or terrorist group, and re-write the article with a similar structure. Ruthlessly carve out the "barely notable" boosterism (leaving only the Clinton pardon).--Froglich (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure you understand the concept of WP:consensus in Wikipedia. If you are looking to remove perceived POV then you need to follow WP:NPOV. Have you followed WP:NPOV? Does it say that you correct perceived POV by consensus-building and/or vote-taking? As it stand now, WP:NPOV states "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Doesn't exist objection

Regarding THIS edit, obviously the citizenship must exist if there is a live article wikilinked to it. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

More edits

If anyone can point to the court documents that would be helpful.

More details on the escape attempt might clarify why he was given more years. He passed on a list of supplies needed for a getaway including machine guns, dinamite, and grenades. The escape attempt would likely have caused many deaths.

There is also the question of why is he willing to accept parole now (though now denied) but did not take the clemency offer, with parole, before from Clinton.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Reinstatement of cite text and removal of redundant text

Cited text was removed HERE. It has been reinstated, per WP:V. Text was added HERE. It has been removed per WP:WEIGHT: it is redundant here - that's what wikilinks are for. Mercy11 (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oscar Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery and multiple weapons charges, this would be considered violent crimes

The citations use in the text make a point that no prosecuter was able to directly link Oscar Lopez Rivera to crimes that caused bodily harm, although the unstated context of his imprisonment is that as one of the bomb makers for the FALN, he was likely involved in the Fraunces Tavern murders. But lets stick to the facts. Armed robbery is a Violent crime. Oscar was convicted of armed robbery, therefore he was convicted of a violent crime. The statement: "López Rivera was never accused of any act of violence.[7][8]" is not true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rococo1700 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Per WP:ISNOT, this is not a place for publishing original research. The statement is question is sourced and verifiable, plus cited from mainstream press which means it also passes WP:RS. Perhaps your point is valid. Perhaps there are two opposing viewpoints even by mainstream media. But there must be a WP:RS to support your point, and so far all there has been is your own personal opinion. If you can find a source that states what you are claiming then we can discuss your position; otherwise you are in violation of WP:OR. I am not saying I am in disagreement with the position that "Oscar Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery and multiple weapons charges, this would be considered violent crimes". The problem is that there is no WP:RS for that statement - as such, the statement in the article prior to your edit was valid per WP:V. Mercy11 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I love it when wikipedians speak in there words. It is not original research to say: Oscar was convicted of armed robbery. I cite the wikipedia entry that states armed robbery = violent crime. Hence Oscar was convicted of a violent crime.

In other words, the statement: "López Rivera was never accused of any act of violence." is false.

In addition, the CNN article you use to source that statement states that Clinton said "None of them were convicted of doing bodily harm to anyone." Again one could argue that this statement applies only to those granted clemency. Oscar was not granted clemency. Regardless, there is a difference between "causing bodily harm" and "never accused of any act of violence". If you aim a gun at someone during a robbery, you are not hurting someone physically, yet this remains an act of violence in the eyes of the law. Again I cite the sources in Violent crime.

I will add a statement to the effect that Oscar was convicted of armed robbery, a violent crime.refs The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Second Edition, edited by Gus Martin, page 194 and Clemency for FALN members : hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, One Hundre Sixth Congress. 4.J 89/2:S.HRG.106-799. United States. Testimony of Donald Wofford, former FBI agent, page 26-30."

This is not primary research. These are cited facts by different sources. And I have already demonstrated that one of the sources you cite does not corroborate your claims. If you remove thisline, then we should resort to arbitration. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Per, WP:SPS, you cannot use Wikipedia to support your statements because Wikipedia is a self-published source. Also, "Hence Oscar was convicted of a violent crime...In other words, the statement: 'López Rivera was never accused of any act of violence.' is false" falls under WP:SYN: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves". Your use of Wikipedia and analysis of the CNN article to arrive at a new conclusion is a violation of WP:SYN.

As to the new source you provide (The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Second Edition, edited by Gus Martin, page 194 and Clemency for FALN members : hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, One Hundre Sixth Congress. 4.J 89/2:S.HRG.106-799. United States. Testimony of Donald Wofford, former FBI agent, page 26-30." ), those pages (26-30) do not mention the phrase "violent crime" even once. Further search HERE shows the phrase is never mentioned in the entire source in association with OLR or the FALN. As such your source is invalid and it has been removed, per WP:V.

The statement that you removed HERE and again HERE, namely that "López Rivera was never accused of any act of violence", was sourced to THIS RS site. It states "López Rivera, de 70 años, nunca fue acusado por actos violentos." (English: López Rivera, 70 years old, was never accused of violent acts.) You removed a statement that was sourced to a WP:RS and you did so with edit summary based on WP:OR ("Removed statement that 'Rivera was never accused of any act of violence', since he was convicted of using force to commit robbery. That is violence."). You violated WP:V as well as [WP:SYN]]. Your edits have been reverted per WP:V and WP:SYN. Per WP:V, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source". As such, you should not change the content of the article there again unless you can provide a valid source that directly supports your claim.

If you search for a good RS to support the claim that he was convicted of armed robbery, thus he commited a violent act, remember that being an accessory to armed robbery (accomplice) can convict you of armed robbery without you ever holding a loaded weapon on your hands and pointing it to others, and you seem to be assuming that sort of scenario. That scenario is quite different from, say, being the driver of a bank robbery's getaway car when all you are holding on your hands in a steering wheel, and I know of no law that categorizes driving a getaway car's as a violent crime. I am not condeming one or the other; I am saying that if he was convicted of a violent crime as you are claiming then it would had been reported as such by RS sources and you should have no problem sourcing it. Per WP:BURDEN, I have removed your edit on that regard.

Again, I am not objecting to the inclusion of the claim you are making that OLR committed a violent crime. The problem is that you are doing so without a citation. Your "Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery, a violent crime" (HERE) comprises editorializing and that is a violation of WP:NPOV. Find a citation that states he was convicted of a violent crime and then it can be included. WP:V states that (paraphrasing) if he was convicted of a violent crime, then someone would had reported it as such. You cannot be the first one to report it in Wikipedia. That's a violation of WP:OR. Mercy11 (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your statements are false. They are based on sources that do not represent WP:RS and by only using unreliable sources for basing a conclusion that is not substantiated by the facts (the offenses for which ORL was convicted), your are violating WP:NPOV.

I have deleted your sentences as non-factual and replaced them with the following two sentences: Oscar Lopez Rivera was convicted of using force to commit robbery., which is considered a violent crime.

In your statement, you said “Per, WP:SPS, you cannot use Wikipedia to support your statements because Wikipedia is a self-published source.” I had attributed the Wikipedia the claim that robbery was a violent crime. Now I use the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice, that robbery is a violent crime.

I cite also from a DOJ statment of his parole hearing that he was convicted of using force to commit robbery. This comes from another reliable government site. Now therefore, Oscar Lopez Rivera was convicted of a violent crime. It stands to fact that to state that OLR “ was never convicted of any act of violence” is false.

Also your sources do not represent WP:RS . Your sources are not reliable. They violate WP:NPOV. The CNN source do not state what you claim. Your citations include:

• Primera Hora article about a protest for ORL’s liberty
• A “Free OLR site”
• A “National Boricua Human Rights Network” site
• An article about “Brooklyn Group Rallies for Release of Puerto Rican Political Prisoner”

The information in these articles is obtained from groups seeking OLR's release.

• The CNN article you cite does not state that ORL was not violent, only that Clinton said that they were not convicted of causing bodily harm. That is different from violence.

I have followed your rules and used a reliable source to state that OLR committed robbery and that robbery is a violent crime. This is not research, this is now fact. If you revert the comment then we need to have other editors involved. In order to prove the above statement wrong, you would have to find a source more reliable that the US Department of Justice that states that OLR was not convicted of robbery and that defines robbery as a non-violent crime in the United States.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• You need to reach WP:CONSENSUS for what you are trying to do. So far, you have none. I will concede on your "Don" skirmish. As for the rest, get consensus as many editors have chimmed in on this through the years and the version was stable as it was. Stop reverting to your own preferred version. You are violating WP:DISRUPT. Reverted your edits based on WP:RS, for your removal of sourced text. Your edits are WP:SYN. Mercy11 (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Just READ THE CASE, already

This is really quite simple. There is only ONE way to resolve this, without endless bickering over what "third party" sources state. That is to READ THE CASE ITSELF. Here is the citation:

U.S. v. Oscar Lopez et al., No. 86 CR 513 (N.D. Ill.).

Ironically, some people will call that "original research" and then INSIST on arguing endlessly on the differing (and thus mistaken) views and opinions of other "reliable" sources.

That is cyclical stupidity at best. Just READ THE DAMNED CASE.

By the way...the case states, and OLR was convicted, of seditious conspiracy to overthrow the authority of the United States. Not armed robbery. Sarason (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Just READ THE PAROLE COMMISSION REPORT already

The Parole Commission report is set forth by the United States Department of Justice, the government agency that prosecuted the case US Parole Commission. As I stated before and as it states in this verifiable and reliable source: Lopez, who has been incarcerated for 30 years, was sentenced to 55 years’ imprisonment following his August 11, 1981 conviction for seditious conspiracy, use of force to commit robbery, interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition to aid in the commission of a felony, and interstate transportation of stolen vehicles. The offenses arose out of his role in Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña (“FALN”), a Puerto Rican nationalist group whose activities included over 100 bombings in which six (6) people were killed and others maimed.

Setting aside all the other concerns mentioned above, and focusing on this one conviction: use of force to commit robbery, I have clear, unrefutable documentation of a conviction for robbery. Your use of the word cyclical stupidity only reflects your inability to marshal facts in support of your argument. I can also write in Capital letters, and that does not give more credence to my statements. I do not waver in my conclusions. OLR was convicted of a violent crime

I agree that this needs to have outside mediation. Again, the references used to substantiate the statements in the article are not reliable, and they fail to address the simple, straightfoward statements I have set forth:

• OLR was convicted of use of force to commit robbery.
• Use of force to commit robbery is a violent crime.
• OLR was convicted of a violent crime.

I have reliable evidence to the statements above, this is not research. This is fact. Please link to similar facts or more reliable sources that refute the statments above, and then your arguments will carry weight.Rococo1700 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mercy11 - WP:OWNERSHIP

Glancing through the history of this article, I'm a little concerned there might be some ownership issues relating to Mercy11's edits on this page. The number of tendentious revisions over the years is a little disturbing. Any uninvolved parties want to comment? I'm not sure what the appropriate venue is to prevent this behavior. NPOV boards? NickCT (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Inviting comments from Wikiproject Criminal Behavior editors about dispute regarding violent crime

Hi all, this is regarding a dispute over the usage of the words violent crime regarding the conviction of Oscar López Rivera. While it has been shown that Oscar López Rivera has been convicted of bank robbery, the dispute is about whether it can be added that he is convicted of violent crimes. As WikiProject Criminal Biography was not added to the talk page of the article, I am doing so, and opening this section to invite comments from editors of this project. Please be brief and concise in your comments and refrain from personal attacks -Wikishagnik (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nationality field in the infobox

Corrected entry in this field. Per definition, Nationality and Citizenship have different meanings. Mercy11 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nationality entry should reflect facts. Puerto Rican Citizenship is a controversial denomination. Certainly there is zero, I mean zero, acceptance to OLR having Puerto Rican citizenship except in his own mind, and that of Mercy11. He was living in United States, as an American Citizen, when he was convicted of the violent crimes including using of force to commit robbery. Clearly it would be a benefit for OLR to claim foreign citizenship, since this might make his conviction questionable, since the embassy of his nationality was not contacted. He would prefer to be known as a prisoner of war, but alas that is not the reality. And you can not use your beliefs and biases to make it so. It is a fanciful whim, with no certain documentation from any government that he has Puerto Rican citizenship. Mercy11, if you alter my editing, this violates Wikipedia guidelines, and I will ask that you be banned from editing this entry. You have not provided a shred of evidence that any government has granted OLR Puerto Rican Citizenship. You state above that Nationality and Citizenship have different meanings, but then enter a form of citizenship in the nationality entry. This is not valid. You can not revert entries without basis. If you have a citation that shows a copy of the original certification of OLR prior to his conviction. He can renounce his US citizenship, but until his incarceration is complete, he is considered a US citizen. Rococo1700 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversy elsewhere is no reason for radical changes to this article. Per WP:IBX, I have restored the contents to its previous description. Per WP:TPG. if you think Puerto Rican citizenship is a controversial denomination, you should bring it up at the Puerto Rican citizenship Talk Page, not here. Please make your case on the Puerto Rican citizenship talk page where other editors watching that page will see your comments and have an opportunity to give their opinions. Mercy11 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Puerto Rican citizenship is controversial, which it is, what is not controversial is that there is zero, no documentation to substantiate Puerto Rican citizenship for OLR. You can continue to quote Wikipedia alphabet soup, but I will not back down. If you revert again without providing documentation, then your are violating WP:3RR. Again, to implicate OLR has Puerto Rican citizenship is a non-legal ploy by nationalist elements. Please do not revert without any evidence. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, please read the documents regarding his conviction. They do not state that he is a foreign citizen, instead he is a citizen of the United States, as are all individuals born in Puerto Rico, and OLR had not relinquished his citizenship when he was arrested for crimes in Illinois, and after living for over a decade in the mainland US. If this point is allowed to stand then any individual who is incarcerated in the US can declare unilaterally declare foreign citizenship in an enemy country, and call himself a prisoner of war.

There is no data, no legal documentation, no passport, you can proffer to sustain the citizenship that you assign. All the alphabet soup in the world, does not make Mercy11 factual, and again, it is facts that I am debating here, if this continues, then I argue that Mercy11 should be blocked from editing, since as I and others have experienced, he violates neutrality it trying to declare OLR a citizenship which no government has recognized for him. Using Mercy11's logic, OLR could declare himself a citizen of the Moon.

Again this point of Mercy11 has nothing to do with the facts. Mercy11 has a relentless urge to define OLR in his own non-neutral view point as a non-violent prisoner of war. The problem for Mercy11 is that OLR is a violent criminal with US citizenship with ties to an organization which killed innocent bystanders using bombs. He was convicted as a US citizen, and is jailed as a US citizen. He may not wish this, but reality trumps his wishes, and Wikipedia needs to stand for facts. 04:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Rococo1700 (talk)

• One, I have provided the sources you requested. Two, at Wikipedia we don't go by the documents on his conviction, because they are WP:PRIMARY and this is an encyclopedia. Third, passports, etc., likewise are PRIMARY sources; we don't do that at Wikipedia. Fourth, please stay on the subject and WP:AGF, this is not a battleground to express political views. Likewise, even if OLR was a violent criminal and murdered the entire galaxy, we cannot say he is not a Puerto Rican national without WP:RS. Mercy11 (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not take back my statement that PR citizenship is controversial, a cursory glance at the entry in Wikipedia will demonstrate that. What I can state, unequivocably, is that there is no legal documentation that OLR is a Puerto Rican citizen. Mercy11 is avoiding the fact of the debate that are whether the label of Puerto Rican Citizenship or US citizenship is appropriate in the nationality entry.

I would refer the authors to 7 FAM 1297 ATTEMPTS TO RENOUNCE OR RELINQUISH WHILE IN THE UNITED STATES (CT:CON-407; 06-29-2012) by U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs Which states that:

a. CA frequently receives letters from individuals in the United States attempting to notify the U.S. Government that they do not consider themselves subject to the United States or the U.S. State of residence. We also receive letters from persons serving prison sentences in the United States who mistakenly believe that if they renounce or otherwise relinquish U.S. citizenship, they will be released from prison in the United States.

If OLR or Mercy11 can produce a document from the US Consular Affairs office that accepts his relinquishment of US citizenship, then we can debate the point. At this point, like MERCY11's fanciful and arbitrary assignment of an honorific Don to this violent criminal reflects only his point of view and not any facts. In the case of citizenship, it is plain false.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oscar Lopez Rivera was born in Puerto Rico as sourced HERE, HERE and HERE. And he is "Puerto Rican" as stated HERE, HERE, and HERE. Oscar Lopez Rivera himself admits to be Puerto Rican HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Nowhere does it ever state his nationality is American as you are pushing from your Citizenship in the United States infobox entry and from your (politically-motivated) arguments HERE ("Clearly it would be a benefit for OLR to claim foreign citizenship, since this might make his conviction questionable, since the embassy of his nationality was not contacted. He would prefer to be known as a prisoner of war..." and "to implicate OLR has Puerto Rican citizenship is a non-legal ploy by nationalist elements"); your argument there is WP:OR. In addition, your political propaganda is forbidden by Wikipedia policy, HERE. You need to find a source that states that he is American national and then we can consider the edit you are trying to inject. Your document from the US Department of State is WP:PRIMARY and thus cannot be used as a source as you are trying to do. You were already told that by an admin HERE.

Additionaly, no one at Wikipedia or anywhere needs to "produce a document from the US Consular Affairs office that accepts [OLR's] relinquishment of US citizenship" because it is common knowlege that a person born in any country anywhere is citizen of (as well as a national of) that country. You "document" request is also WP:PRIMARY. This is why we don't need to produce a document from anywhere to prove that George Washington was American - the mere fact that RS sources state he was born in the US, proves GW is American. That "CA Relinquish" document that you presented is also meaningless because people around the world can have more than one citizenship and it is not required to "relinquish" one to gain the other, as you are presumming.

In each and every WP:RS I have searched there is a consistent association of Oscar Lopez Rivera with Puerto Rico, and never a US/American citizenship as you are trying to make it. If you disagree, take it HERE, WP:DISPUTE, or HERE, or initiate an WP:RfC for WP:CONSENSUS. If you revert the sourced information in the article, you can be reported to be blocked or even, banned from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not about what you want to take back, but about what Wikipedia policies state. You have already been informed HERE that if you believe Puerto Rican citizenship is controversial, you need to take that over at that Puerto Rican citizenship article's Talk Page. Reverting to your preferred vesion, without sources, is not the way to do it. Per WP:V, it doesn't matter either that you can state something "unequivocably"; you need sources, and so far you have provided none. Mercy11 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mercy11 Please stop changing the Nationality entry

You have already been warned [[1]] to cease in this nationality crusade of yours. OLR is an United States citizen. He was not convicted as a foreign citizen. That may be your wish, that may be his wish, but Wikipedia is not about wishes or agendas, it is about the truth. Now you switch nationality from being Puerto Rican citizenship to Puerto Rican people, when it is clearly redundant since you have already placed his ethnicity as Puerto Rican people. If you continue to engage in this nonsense, we can go back to having editors review all your postings, or blocking all your entries into this article, and having this rewritten.

As to your hand waving about citizenship of OLR, please show me in one of his legal documents that he was a citizen of a foreign country. What embassy was contacted to inform them of his crimes? As to establishing his US citizenship, all persons born in Puerto Rico after the Jones–Shafroth Act are US citizens, unless they relinquish their citizenship.

Again, I need to see a consensus for your changes to be acceptable. One consensus would be for you to abandon this nationality crusade and eliminate the box altogether, since his US citizenship has never been in question by any legal or consular authority.Rococo1700 (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

not to butt in, but nationality and citizenship are not the same thing. The subject is a US citizen that might identify as a PR national, just saying. Bottom line, we report or use what reliable sources say. --Malerooster (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me reply to the main points backing the entry in Nationality as US Citizen to Mercy11: "Oscar Lopez Rivera was born in Puerto Rico"

• Nobody denies this. The Jones Act states all persons born in Puerto Rico are US citizens.

As to the remainder of you complaints, the fact that he claimed to be a prisoner of war during his trial as sourced in reference ([2] Prendergast, Alan. Denver Westword, 12 July 1995. Retrieved on 21 November 2008) should suffice to address my claim that "He would prefer to be known as a prisoner of war..." as an illegal or invalid ploy. With regards to: You need to find a source that states that he is American national. I cite you. Again, all persons born in Puerto Rico are born American citizens.

Malerooster has said nationality and citizenship are not the same thing; true but still, OLR was born, lived as a citizen, and was convicted (legal relationship) in and by the United States of America. Mercy11 initially inserted Puerto Rican citizenship into the infobox. Now he has changed his tune to Puerto Rican People. But that is his ethnicity also, do we need both? Also what is his point. Ultimately the Nationality of OLR affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and despite OLR's attempt to deny the state's legal jurisdiction over him, he was living as an American Citizen in the US when he was convicted. He can not while in jail change his citizenship by his wish alone. Nationality is a legal relationship, OLR has no legal relationship with a state of Puerto Rico.

There are three options here: either the nationality entry is deleted or made into: "US citizen although he claims to have Puerto Rican Citizenship", which sounds to me like a confused idea, or it reads the state with which he has a legal relationship: United States. Rococo1700 (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I removed both fields from the infobox until you can reach a consensus. For the record, I don't think that a "nationality" field is even that important (especially in an infobox this big) when the birth place is already listed. With that said, I think that Rococo is unaware that there is a Puerto Rican citizenship -granted at birth- that precedes the Jones Act and that even the pro-statehood Roselló administration recognized this fact when they amended the political code to state that only US citizens could hold the PR citizenship in 1997 (i.e. OLR is not a "US citizen although he claims to have Puerto Rican Citizenship", he is actually a dual citizen with a marked preference for one of them). That pretty much makes this a circular argument and either side could continue to argue the issue endlessly, so... I would suggest that simply keeping the field blank would be the more elegant exit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am ok with the present solution. I think this argument misses the legal point that OLR was trying to allege: that the government of the US could not try him as a US citizen. Clearly OLR this was not recognized by the American Justice system. I do not think any of the arguments about the existance of PR citizenship changes that clear reality. OLR is an American citizen in an American jail. Also I changed in infobox charge to what he was charged, not to what he "intended"; penalty was 70 yearsRococo1700 (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

History of Puerto Rican Nationality

People born in Puerto Rico automatically have dual nationality: Puerto Rican and American. Puerto Rico follows the Jus soli law (the right of the soil or the land) meaning that one’s nationality is determined by the place of one's birth. Therefore, a person can be Puerto Rican and American due to the fact that he was born in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

On October 25, 2006, the Puerto Rican State Department declared the existence of the Puerto Rican nationality (see: Juan Mari Bras). Puerto Rican nationality was recognized in 1898 after Spain ceded the island to the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War. On April 12, 1900, the Congress of the United States enacted the Foraker Act of 1900. Section VII of this act created a Puerto Rican citizenship for the residents "born in Puerto Rico and, therefore, subject to its jurisdiction". In 1917, the United States granted Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship without the requirement that the islanders renounce their PR citizenship. Since then, everyone born in Puerto Rico are both Puerto Ricans and U.S. citizens. However, in Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans do not enjoy full U.S. citizenship rights because their rights as such are limited (For example: they can not vote in the Presidential elections), plus the U.S. citizenship with limitations which Puerto Ricans have can be revoked by the United States since said citizenship was granted by an Act of Congress. An amendment to the United States Constitution must be made in order for Puerto Ricans to be allowed to have the same rights which the American citizens have and enjoy in the continental United States. Puerto Ricans do not need to renounce either of the citizenships and do not need a passport to go to the continental United States and once there can participate in every activity as every other U.S. citizen.

There is a common misconception that all Puerto Ricans are of Hispanic background. The confusion stems from people automatically associating the term 'Puerto Rican' (nationality) with the term 'Hispanic' (ethnicity). Even though the primary ethnicity in Puerto Rico is Hispanic, there are numerous other ethnic groups which make up the Puerto Rican nationality. There are many Puerto Ricans of African, Corsican, French, Irish, German, Chinese, Dutch, Lebanese and of Jewish descent, among others.

Laws Concerning Citizenship/Nationality

The modern world is divided up into nations with each nation, at least nominally, exercising control over its own territory and the people who reside within that territory. Among modern nations, citizenship at birth is conveyed in one of two ways; either though Jus soli (the right of the soil or the land) meaning that one’s nationality is determined by the place of one's birth; or through jus sanguinis (the right of blood) where nationality is determined by the nationality of one's descent (parents). Birthright citizenship is the term used for Jus soli as it is applied under US law.

Marine 69-71 19:27, 23 April 2014‎

As noted above, I think that the argument can keep going around endlessly since neither side is truly right or wrong. This is not the first time that it happens and it won't be the last unless a common practice is adopted. And I believe that simply removing the field from any controversial article could very well be that practice. Mentioning nationality in the infobox (or even the lead) seems redundant when we already mention birthplace. I know that doing so may go against the "pride" of asserting a compatriot's identity, but really, its not a big deal. Just let the reader figure it out based on the content of the prose and the subject's actions. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with change. I have no comment on the other comments above. Made further changes to infobox, which I do not think are controversial and are factual. I think the next issue that needs to be addressed is that stating he is a political prisoner is an opinion, not a fact. He was not convicted of political beliefs but due to acts or planned acts. Rococo1700 (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)\

A report by the US House of Congress is not a primary source

Mercy11, your claim that a report by a committee of the US House of Representatives, citing Department of Justice documents, is a ‘’primary source’’ is unsubstantiated. You cite WP:Primary, but that defines primary sources as Primary Sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. The US House of Representatives report was not written by insiders or people directly involved. They cite Department of Justice documents. The source itself is an official government document. I am restoring all the text you deleted.

As to whether OLR belongs to FALN or not, the conviction speaks for itself. He was convicted of a conspiracy involving FALN members, and according to one of those involved, Alfredo Mendez (see congressional report), OLR was a member of the FALN. These appear to be inconvenient, but well cited facts. The FALN took responsibility for the bombing of the Fraunces Tavern. According to Alfredo Mendez, OLR was involved in the preparation of bombs for the FALN. He was convicted of this. The deaths at Fraunces Tavern and Exxon bombings are relevant to OLR, since he was a member of FALN and involved in the conspiracy and of crimes involving explosives.

Mercy11 made numerous changes without justifying them here in the talk page, deleting material that was appropriately sourced, thus I am restoring the page to prior to his changes. He made some point about comrades, that is likely correct, but his other points do not make sense.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't rely on primary sources for a reason. We are not in the business of analyzing or synthesizing information. The proper way to source your information is to cite secondary sources where the report is discussed. Please source your information accordingly. --Jmundo (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Facts are facts. First of all, the House report is not a primary source according to your definition. It is the House Government document citing the facts of his conviction. We should not source the facts of his conviction only to newspaper articles or other opinion pieces. Please read the Wikipedia statements on biographies of living individuals. My postings are within the guidelines. My sourced material is not analyzed. It is not synthesized. Please source your information appropriately.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

WIkipedia states: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.

Response: a published, available, a House committee report signed by members of the US House of Representatives is a high-quality and verifiable source. The material is also noteworthy since it includes the consensus of many authors.

With regards to primary sources:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.

Reply: that is not true of the House of Representatives. None of the individuals were involved in the events of the conspiracy that is discussed. They were not directly involved, period. They are commenting on events that occurred. They cite the court case, but if we want to get the facts, that is what ultimately needs to be cited when stating what an individual was convicted for, and what the statements by the court was. The problem with the article is that it ignores the details of why OLR was convicted for such a long term, and using a non-neutral point of view, states that OLR was convicted for either polictical beliefs (hence a political prisoner) or citing a journalist that states "sedition, the act of attempting to overthrow the Government of the United States in Puerto Rico by force." None of the legal documents corroborate this. The House report contradicts this. I would agree that OLRs may believe his intention was to overthrow the Government by force, but to state that he was convicted of that is false.

Mercy11 and Jmundo are misusing wikipedia policy. I would refer other editors to the discussion in this talk page and for them to come to a decision as to whether at least Mercy11 is doing this as non-neutral advocacy, and creating an factual imbalance in this article, by minimizing the violence and deaths that were associated with the conspiracy that OLR was convicted for.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• You are trying a living person for crimes he did not commit. See WP:BLP Stop pushing your guilty-by-association agenda. You don't have an oita of evidence that this person had anything to do with any acts of violence or deaths. You have already been told that at the PW:DR/N. Stop pushing your "violent crime" agenda. Mercy11 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• • I do not understand what your are saying above. You are trying to relitigate the violence argument which is already being looked at by other editors. I am not backing down from those facts. Again, I am not retrying OLR, he was convicted (that is tried already) for using force to commit robbery. That is a violent offence. But lets get back to topic: I am using a reliable, verifiable non-primary source of information about his convictions. This is not an agenda, these are facts. You seem to have a problem with the use of facts because it does not fit into your biased agenda. I have not been told in PW:DR/N to remove this information. You do not own this entry.Rococo1700 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I have reverted for a second time JMundos deletions of my entries. Please see above the definition of a primary source. I would urge JMundo to discuss his reasons for deleting factual material. Does he have a problem with the verifiability of the information? Is it true? Is it related to OLR? I would argue that it is verifiable. It is not a primary source. It is true, and highly relevant to why OLR is in jail with a sentence of 70 years. Also please do not edit the charges unless you can show a citation that verifies the criminal charges as filed. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Rococo, you are better finding sources that fit WP:SECONDARY more closely. Mercy11 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Rococo; Asking for secondary sources is an essential part of Wikipedia. I do have a problem that you material is base loosely to an internal DOJo's memo. As for your personal accusations and edit warring, I am asking you to refrain from personal attacks and canvassing around the project to seek support for your point of view, as you did here: ["I sense they have done a reasonable job here, how can that be expanded to something like Oscar Lopez Rivera, who has become the Mumia for the cause of Puerto Rican independence. Any help would be appreciated" ]. --Jmundo (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• • JMundo, I did provide a secondary source. You are edi warring by removing well sourced material. Please refrain from attacking me, and review the entries in this talk page by other editors that convey the same problems I am facing here. You need to address the question: is the House report a primary source or not. You now seem to be saying it is material based loosely on an internal DOJo's (sic) memo. That is not true, the report was based on UPI reports and presentencing reports. But this is then signed off by dozens of congressman in the United States from both parties. Loosely based represents your non-neutral point of view. I stand by my comment in the Mumia site because it may draw to the editing of this page, some persons who do not push an agenda. Because you and Mercy11 are engaged in an editing war against my facts.Rococo1700 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

My last edit, I have undone Rococo deletion of secondary independent sources including a NY Times article,1 . I asked last night for page protection to cool down the situation, hopefully an administrator can apply our BLP policy.--Jmundo (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

OLR was not convicted of sedition, the act of attempting to overthrow the Government of the United States in Puerto Rico by force.

While the one source you cite uses that sentence, it is not found in any of the legal documents. While that is likely the intent of OLR, he was not convicted of this. He was convicted of sedition, period. He was also convicted of other criminal offenses, some considered violent crimes.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Please do not attempt to re-write history. You are really far off in this. Mercy11 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Please do not attempt to re-write history. Please cite a legal document from his conviction that states, he was convicted sedition, the act of attempting to overthrow the Government of the United States in Puerto Rico by force. Again, I want verifiable facts. He was convicted, please state what he was convicted for, not your opinions. Wikipedia does not want you to synthesize new conclusions. Your position violates Wikipedia policy. Rococo1700 (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Is OLR a political prisoner?

Clearly the old saying: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter can apply to OLR. However, OLR was not convicted of having political opinions, but on sedition and other criminal actions. The question is whether Sedition is a conviction that only applies to political prisoners. I think the use of the word political prisoner represents a point of view, there are those who would disagree and they would have facts to support this. I recommend that others reviewing this page also comment on the use of this term in this article as a fact.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• At Wikipeda we don't go by old sayings, but by hwat other sources say. Thw question is not "whether Sedition is a conviction that only applies to political prisoners", that is your question, not Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Sources state he is a political prisoner. Please do not push your personal ultranationalist American agenda here. Mercy11 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia, we don't go by NPOV statements of editors. Where does it say conclusively that sedition is a conviction that applies only to political prisoners. That is your logic, not Wikipedia's accepted definition. Some sources state he is not a political prisoner. You do not allow those sources, including the House of Representatives report to be included, and use specious arguments for that purpose.

The problem with your statement above is that it ignores all the other convictions, including robbery etc that are not political crimes. In addition, in my view most people would view conspiracy including bombings, in a democratic society would not be an appropriate expression of political beliefs. Again I refer you to political prisoner, which states Supporters of the term define a political prisoner as someone who is imprisoned for his or her participation in political activity. and where politics is activity is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. I don't view bomb-making as political activity. OLR is not a prisoner of conscience, he was not jailed for his beliefs, he was jailed for actions. Whether or not, there were beliefs behind those actions. Please do not push your personal ultranationalist Puerto Rican agenda here. Rococo1700 (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Bias of this article

My experience in Wikipedia has been mainly editing short posthumous entries about Italian artists. I underscore posthumous, because I think the fact that there is information at all about them from the distance of usually over a century, means that there is little controversy about notability, and little controversy about anything else.

OLR is different. This article reads as a screed and full of biases. For example:

• López Rivera is said to be "among the longest held political prisoners in ... the history of the world. If that is true, then I can cite reports that say that he is not a political prisoner, but instead a violent criminal.

That is the main problem: is the policy of JMundo and Mercy11 to delete anything that goes against their bias. JMundo continues to state that a report by the US House of Representatives is not an appropriate source. He does not provide evidence that such reports have not been used in Wikipedia ad sources. I don't delete their paragraphs on political prisoners, they are following a campaign of intimidation and bias in deleting the facts I place in the article.

Wikipedia needs to find a way to make this article reflect the breadth of opinions and stamp out the insidious biases that continue to creep in.

For example, the statement that Nationality is Puerto-Rican. Thankful that was excised by Caribbean H.Q. The controversial nature of the statement is that OLR claims to be a prisoner of war with a different nationality, while he was convicted as a criminal with American Citizenship. My point is that I am ok with the article stating his claims, but it is only a claim. The US government and the Department of Justice give little value to the ability of incarcerated and convicted US citizens, suddenly declaring themselves citizens of another country. If so, then every Tom, Dick, and Harry in long-term incarceration would declare himself a Samoan citizen and seek extradition. Again, I am interested in balance, and an article that trumpets his citizenship as non-US would be doing a disservice to the reality of his incarceration as a citizen.

Another point, the article states The president's offer was strongly opposed by Republicans and law enforcement agencies. But as it cites in the article Bill Clinton pardon controversy, Congress condemned this action by President Clinton, with votes of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House. This means the actions were opposed by bipartisan majorities.

Finally the issue of violence is critical. The article incorrectly states that Clinton asserted that OLR and other FALN members did not commit violence. Let me cite Clinton's words

whatever the conduct of other FALN members may have been, these petitioners--while convicted of serious crimes--were not convicted of crimes involving the killing or maiming of any individuals. 106th Congress, 1st Session - House Report 106-488.

It is a detail, but this does not exonerate OLR of violence. Robbery with weapons is a violent crime. Also, many would beg to differ with the text of the President. The conspiracy included bomb-making. The case of Marie Haydee Beltran Torres is another example of how the conspiracy including OLR did include individuals who were convicted of violent acts that resulted in the death of individuals. She was not offered clemency in 1999.

Ultimately the challenge is how to incorporate the information of why OLR was convicted of sedition. I believe the presentencing report for OLR cited in the House Report above is a succint, verifiable account of what he was convicted for. This was not a prisoner of conscience but instead:

prime recruiter for members of the underground terrorist group ...a key trainer in bombing, sabotage and other techniques of guerilla warfare. He has set up a series of safehouses and bomb factories across the country, the searches of which have uncovered literally hundreds of pounds of dynamite and other forms of high explosive, blasting caps, timing devices, huge caches of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, disguises, stolen and altered identity documents, and the proceeds of the armed robberies of locations such as a National Guard Armory, Chicago's Carter-Mondale Re-Election headquarters, radio and communications companies, as well as a variety of stolen vehicles

I am believe that a statement about these facts needs to be included int he article, and I am more than willing to allow all the commentary in the article as it stands about who wants him freed, or thinks him innocent, or his claims that he disowns the bombings. But to ignore the facts for which he was convicted is to create a biased portrait of OLR. This is not innuendo, not opinions, these are the findings of the court of law that has convicted him.

JMundo and Mercy11 repeatedly delete these comments from the entry. Mercy11 claimed that the source was primary. But for example, the FALN Commutation of 1999 paragraph in the article Bill Clinton pardon controversy, cites similar House reports. Since when have reports of the US House of Representatives become unacceptable sources?

I am not in agreement with the way the article stands and there is no consensus that what it states now is valid or verifiable. If the article is unblocked, I will insert the descriptions of the conspiracy that OLR participated, citing the factual data in the House Report. My observation from the prior efforts of other editors to modify this article, is that without outside arbitration, a few editors will eliminate any insertion into the article of any detailed information about the crimes for which OLR was convicted.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You complain of bias but then say things like It is a detail, but this does not exonerate OLR of violence. Robbery with weapons is a violent crime. Also, many would beg to differ with the text of the President. You make the statement that "robbery with weapons is a violent crime" as if this were a fact. It isn't. It is your opinion. And who are these "many" you casually claim would differ? Helpsome (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • Helpsome states: You complain of bias but then say things like It is a detail, but this does not exonerate OLR of violence.

• • • Yes, not being convicted of killing and maiming does not equate to not being violent. In addition, Marie Haydée Beltrán Torres who was not offered clemency by Clinton, and convicted of a bombing which did lead to the death of a civilian, and therefore does not fall under the rubric of those not convicted of "killing and maiming" was still part of the conspiracy for which OLR and the others were convicted. Again, the sentencing reports for OLR do make this clear. It is not my bias, but these are the facts of his conviction which Jmundo and Mercy11 do not allow into the article.

• • • Helpsome states: Robbery with weapons is a violent crime. Also, many would beg to differ with the text of the President. You make the statement that "robbery with weapons is a violent crime" as if this were a fact. It isn't. It is your opinion.

• • • Robbery, specially with weapons, is a violent crime. Not my opinion, but that of the Department of Justice.(see Bureau of Justice Statistics) Your opinion is that it is not.

• • • And who are these "many" you casually claim would differ? Helpsome (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I would start by the majority of the fellow citizens of OLR, represented by the vast majority (>97%) of United States Senators (voting 95 to 2) and 88% of the US Congressmen (voting 311 to 41) voting against the clemency offered to the members of the FALN conspiracy, including OLR. (see "Congressional Record — House" H8019, United States Government Printing Office, 1999-09-09 and "Congressional Record — Senate" S18018, United States Government Printing Office, 1999-09-14.)Rococo1700 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 May 2014

• I request that detailed information about the convictions of OLR be included in the text. This includes information that the conspiracy that he was convicted included bombings. Ultimately citations from his presentencing report were present in my edits.
• I request that if there is a statement that some believe he is a political prisoner, then we should allow similar statements in the report by the US House of Representatives [3] that he is a violent offender.
• In addition, the statements that At his trial 1980–81, López and the other Chicago-based FALN defendants were not tied to specific bombings.

This neglects the facts that

1. (Not until) December 1976 ... Chicago police located an FALN ``bomb factory which led to the identification of several FALN members, including Ida Luz Rodriguez and Oscar Lopez Rivera.
2. On July 12, 1978, a powerful explosion occurred in a residential building in New York City. The subsequent investigation revealed that the apartment was an FALN ``bomb factory. Police discovered that the resident of the apartment, FALN member William Morales, was constructing a pipe bomb when the explosion occurred.Morales was seriously injured, losing portions of both hands and his eyesight in one eye. Examination of the apartment turned up materials linked to the FALN members who had gone into hiding in 1976: Oscar Lopez-Rivera, Ida Luz Rodriguez, Maria Haydee Torres, and Carlos Alberto Torres. House Report
3. Haydee Torres, who was part of the conspiracy including OLR, was convicted of a bombing that led to the death of an employee at the Mobil Oil Building on August 3, 1977: New York prosecutors could place Mrs. Torres at the scene and link her to the bomb through fingerprint evidence, holding her responsible for one of the deaths caused by an FALN bomb... Investigators were able to determine that a bomb consisting of two to three sticks of dynamite had been concealed in an umbrella placed on a coat rack in the employment office. Prosecutors explained how ... ``[t]wenty-six year old Charles Steinberg was in immediate proximity to the coatrack, and the rear of his head was blown off in the explosion, resulting in his immediate death.

• OLR was part of a conspiracy that included a presentencing report stating:

Lopez has been personally involved in bombing and incendiary attacks across the country for at least five years prior to Mendez's [sic] involvement and knowledge, has been a prime recruiter for members of the underground terrorist group, and has been a key trainer in bombing, sabotage and other techniques of guerilla warfare. He has set up a series of safehouses and bomb factories across the country, the searches of which have uncovered literally hundreds of pounds of dynamite and other forms of high explosive, blasting caps, timing devices, huge caches of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, disguises, stolen and altered identity documents, and the proceeds of the armed robberies of locations such as a National Guard Armory, Chicago's Carter-Mondale Re-Election headquarters, radio and communications companies, as well as a variety of stolen vehicles. [4] Rococo1700 (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Rococo1700 (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Opposition to the edit request made by Rococo1700

I oppose the above edit request, for reasons that were already enumerated in 2 Dispute Resolution noticeboards, and which I now present here. The first DR did not go in Rococo1700's favor, and he continues to re-litigate the same issues, over and over, hoping that people will either forget the prior DR histories, or become exhausted, or somehow mistake obstinence for being correct. Here now, the reasons which Rococo1700 continues to ignore, but which were fully credited by the mediator and closing administrator in the prior DR:

The fullest, and most important record of this entire dispute, is in a DR (dispute resolution) which Rococo1700 himself filed on April 8, 2012. The volunteer mediator gave Rococo1700 every opportunity to substantiate his failed argument. When Rococo1700 failed to do this, the discussion was Closed as stale after 12 days on April 20, 2014. Here is the archived record of the entire discussion: [5]

If you read that DR, you will see that Rococo1700’s “concerns” were completely addressed with authoritative publications, secondary sources, and direct citations. Please read the mediator Wikishagnik’s comments, and those of the closing administrators. Rococo1700 clearly had his answer; he just doesn't want to hear it.

Now on May 4, 2014, Rococo1700 has filed a “new” DR discussion, which essentially re-litigates the same issues all over again - and with the same lack of secondary sources from Rococo1700. He simply wishes to assert his version of history (without providing any secondary sources) and to override nearly every other editor who has contributed to Oscar Lopez Rivera, over a period of several years. To date, he has not addressed the following set of facts – which were fully credited by the administrators in the prior DR which he filed, and which he continues to ignore.

Facts submitted in prior DR:

Oscar Lopez Rivera was not charged with armed robbery or violence. He was charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the United States. The court’s decision said this, precisely and with no ambiguity. Here is the citation for this case: U.S. v. Oscar Lopez et al., No. 86 CR 513 (N.D. 111).

With respect to secondary sources, you can read this article in the Huffington Post, which states that Lopez Rivera “has already served 32 years in prison for the charge of "seditious conspiracy.” Nowhere in this article, does it state that Rivera was charged with armed robbery or personal violence. [6]

In addition, there is the book Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance, edited by Luis Nieves Falcon (Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2013). In this book, the foreword is written by Nobel Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Here is what he wrote:

“Oscar Lopez Rivera is imprisoned for the “crime” (his quotation marks) of seditious conspiracy: conspiring to free his people from the shackles of imperial justice…My Nobel Peace laureate colleagues Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland and Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina and I expressed our deep concern about the highly irregular and tainted parole hearing that had just taken place. Testimony was permitted at that hearing regarding crimes which Lopez Rivera was never accused of committing in the first place.” See: ‘’Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance’’, p. iv.

You thus have the case itself (I provided the case citation) and two secondary sources. In one of them, a Nobel Peace Prize winner specifically refers to a "tainted parole hearing” in which Lopez Rivera was confronted with charges “regarding crimes which Lopez Rivera was never accused of committing.”

Rococo1700 continues to ignore these facts, these sources, these citations - even though they were fully credited by the DR mediator. On April 17, 2014, at 12:02, Rococo1700 made this comment on the Oscar Lopez Rivera talk page: "I need to see a consensus for your changes to be acceptable."

It is profoundly ironic for Rococvo1700 to issue this advice. If he continues ignoring other editors, ignoring facts, and ignoring the results of DRs filed by him, then at the very least...Rococo1700 should follow his own advice. The consensus of editors, and his own prior DR, have rejected his "I'm right and everyone else is a biased fool" manner of editing.

Sarason (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In which case, Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So what exactly did he do?

Well, according to one editor, OLR was convicted of seditious conspiracy. Here is how that crime is defined in the US Code:

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

So I am curious; just what specifically is that the USG accused OLR, and his alleged accomplices, of doing that would merit such a serious charge, and why would we not include that infomation in the article? Hammersbach (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• • See description of the conspiracy from the House report cited below. I include the paragraphs in my lengthy discussion.

Use of House Report as a verifiable secondary source

I am defending my use of the House Report as a source for the document.

But lets explore the position of Wikipedia on even primary sources in Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS): Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is True. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does.

Hey can't argue with me. That the House report says what I placed in the text. Please look it up.

Mercy11 claims that we can not use court documents. The House report is not a court document. But ultimately what is the final verified definition as to what OLR was convicted for. Do we have to trust biased secondary sources or primary sources that emerge from a report signed by a bipartisan group of US congressmen, reviewing sentencing documents from the Judicial proceeding, and verified by a report by the US Department of Justice. I lobby that both be included. If not, then one is presenting a distorted version of reality.

Many other primary sources, including .. court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.

Again, this is clearly not true in this case, the source that I use is clearly titled to be about the FALN convicts including OLR. There can be no question that a house report about clemency for Nationalists convicted of sedition and serving in US jails could refer to anyone else. So by these criteria, the above statement about primary sources does not apply to the texts in questions. We are not talking about a name or a crime that can be mistaken.

Another criteria for a primary source used when referring to newspaper articles is One rough rule of thumb historians use for identifying primary sources is this: if the source is more than half as old as the event, then it's a primary source. By these criteria, the 1999 report is not a primary source for describing events that occurred in the mid 1970s. I just do not think that should be applied as the means to evaluate this source. But hey, two points for the home team.

Ultimately, I think sentencing statements by the court are quotations and can be used as sources for what was said. In this case, the other problem is that the source clearly states that OLR was convicted of:

1--Seditious Conspiracy............. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2384... 20 2--Interference with Interstate 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951 20

Commerce by Threats or Violence.      and 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2.

9--Carrying Firearms During the 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(b) 10

Commission of Seditious Conspiracy    and 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2.
and Interference with Interstate
Commerce by Violence.

10-- Four counts of Interstate 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2312 5

Transportation of a Stolen Vehicle.   and 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2.

Lets look at the statement in WP:BLPPRIMARY Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records .. to support assertions about a living person.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

However, the House report is a reliable secondary source. In the description of secondary sources for Law In the legal field, source classification is important because the persuasiveness of a source usually depends upon its history. Primary sources may include cases, constitutions, statutes, administrative regulations, and other sources of binding legal authority, while secondary legal sources may include books, the headnotes of case reports, articles, and encyclopedias. Again this is a House report, hence by definition by Wikipedia: a report, hence a secondary source.

Again, two points for the home team, since this is a report. I certainly see other examples of House records or reports used as sources in Wikipedia including in the section on the FALN controversy in the Bill Clinton Pardon Controversy.

What is being deleted by Mercy11 and Jmundo

The House report cites the information on the warrant and convictions of OLR. Again this is not a direct quote; and when one issues a conspiracy conviction, there are others involved and can be multiple acts involved. To merely say that OLR was involved in sedition is wrong. He was convicted of seditious conspiracy. It is not enought to just state seditious conspiracy. Does that mean that they sat around a campfire and sang anti-yanki songs? The details of which are stated below:

A warrant for the arrest of Oscar López was first issued in 1977 for the possession and storage of explosives. In 1980, 11 FALN members were apprehended in Evanston, Illinois, and ten were convicted in the Northern District of Illinois. As part of the indictment, the grand jury charged the 10 defendants with constructing and placing explosive and incendiary devices at 28 sites, including: six banks, six department stores, the Chicago Police Department Headquarters, the Chicago Main Branch of the U.S. Post Office, the National Guard Armory, two County Buildings, the Republican Party Office, the Great Lakes Naval Base, two U.S. Military Recruiting Offices, and the Illinois Naval Militia Building.

If more sources are needed in addition to the house report, then see Breitbart com article written by the son of the man killed in the Fraunces Tavern bombing by the FALN. or here American Spectator article on unrepentant terrorist. In my opinion, such articles, while conveying the truth, like many other biased opinions in the article, are not preferable to the no-nonsense, abbreviated truth by the US Parole commission report on OLR US Parole commission or the detailed information in the House report.

Mercy11 has deleted factual information from all the sources I have used. All of them. For him the only sources are those that further his bias. I want to insert some text here that reflects facts. The second paragraph states: López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence.

This is a lie. Period. That statement is partly sourced by articles titled Arecibo clamors for the liberty of OLR and Free OLR.Are those secondary sources better or more appropriate than two independent reports by goverment bodies, one executive and the other legislative? Are they more valid than the words of the court as cited or reported in those reports?

The final source CNN states that Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn Thursday evening, Clinton defended his ...clemency offer with his wife by saying: "None of them were convicted of doing bodily harm to anyone." However violence has a different meaning; by the definition of the Department of Justice, armed robbery is a violent offense. I also trust the readers of Wikipedia to determine if a conspiracy that includes constructing and placing explosive and incendiary devices at 28 sites or to quote CNN in the article responsible for a wave of bombings across the United States in the 1970s and 1980s is violent or not. I think this information should be part of the article.

Let's set aside the claim by Frank O'Connor, son of the man killed in Fraunces Tavern, that OLR was involved in his father's death, because OLR was not directly convicted of being involved this bombing. My contention is that his seditious conspiracy involved bombings that were involved in the deaths of individuals. In Clinton's clemency, two FALN members were excluded Carlos Alberto Torres and his wife, Maria Haydee Torres. Now Haydee was a con-conspirator with OLR, and she was convicted in causing the death of Charles Steinberg at the bombing in the Mobil building. Again, see the House report which cites presentencing documents from the convictions of FALN members.

1. (Not until) December 1976 ... Chicago police located an FALN bomb factory which led to the identification of several FALN members, including Ida Luz Rodriguez and Oscar Lopez Rivera.
2. On July 12, 1978, a powerful explosion occurred in a residential building in New York City. The subsequent investigation revealed that the apartment was an FALN bomb factory. Police discovered that the resident of the apartment, FALN member William Morales, was constructing a pipe bomb when the explosion occurred.Morales was seriously injured, losing portions of both hands and his eyesight in one eye. Examination of the apartment turned up materials linked to the FALN members who had gone into hiding in 1976: Oscar Lopez-Rivera, Ida Luz Rodriguez, Maria Haydee Torres, and Carlos Alberto Torres. House Report
3. Haydee Torres, who was part of the conspiracy including OLR, was convicted of a bombing that led to the death of an employee at the Mobil Oil Building on August 3, 1977: New York prosecutors could place Mrs. Torres at the scene and link her to the bomb through fingerprint evidence, holding her responsible for one of the deaths caused by an FALN bomb... Investigators were able to determine that a bomb consisting of two to three sticks of dynamite had been concealed in an umbrella placed on a coat rack in the employment office. Prosecutors explained how ... ``[t]wenty-six year old Charles Steinberg was in immediate proximity to the coatrack, and the rear of his head was blown off in the explosion, resulting in his immediate death.

• OLR was part of a conspiracy that included a presentencing report stating:

Lopez has been personally involved in bombing and incendiary attacks across the country for at least five years prior to Mendez's [sic] involvement and knowledge, has been a prime recruiter for members of the underground terrorist group, and has been a key trainer in bombing, sabotage and other techniques of guerilla warfare. He has set up a series of safehouses and bomb factories across the country, the searches of which have uncovered literally hundreds of pounds of dynamite and other forms of high explosive, blasting caps, timing devices, huge caches of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, disguises, stolen and altered identity documents, and the proceeds of the armed robberies of locations such as a National Guard Armory, Chicago's Carter-Mondale Re-Election headquarters, radio and communications companies, as well as a variety of stolen vehicles. [7]

Now my basis for calling him violent is not that he made bombs, not that he made bombs as a co-conspirator in actions that killed Charles Steinberg, but solely on the basis that he was convicted of robbery and that the department of justice defines this as a violent offence, regardless of whether weapons are used (and they were in OLR's conviction) and regardless of whether force was used (and it was in OLR's conviction). Finally this does not even address the convictions for trying to escape from Leavenworth, where he was convicted of Conspiracy to Escape and Transport of Explosives (four charges). The house report also details what the charges entailed. I think this detail matters, because he was not just trying to sneak out the back door unseen, but the plans included: transportation of explosives with intent to kill and injure people. I do not know if that intent qualifies as a violent offense according to the Department of Justice, for that reason I think we should stick with the facts: he was convicted of robbery, a violent crime. The article should not state that López Rivera was convicted, among other crimes, of robbery, a crime considered violent by the US Department of Justice. or something to this effect.

I also believe, we should define the charges. Why was he sentenced for twenty years? Why did congress oppose his clemency in a bipartisan fashion (see Bill Clinton Pardon Controversy)? How can one understand those questions without some reference point to a definition of the charges. Sedition in the past has meant writing obnoxious articles in a newspaper. The Seditious Conspiracy that OLR was involved was far more than just opinions, and this article as it stands, not only makes factual errors as I point out above, but whitewashes the convictions, and spends paragraphs talking about why he should be free. I have no objection to those paragraphs. I do object to the continued deletion by Mercy11 and Jmundo of facts relating to OLR that do not fit into their agenda. Wikipedia should not be an advocacy board. Stating the nature of OLR's conviction is not advocacy, it is the truth. Furthermore, I think the objections of Mercy11 and Jmundo are biased interpretations of Wikipedia policies. To tell you the truth, Wikipedia ultimately seems to state that the verifiable statement should triumph over the secondary source retelling if it is a better reflection of the truth.

Below are the other paragraphs deleted repeatedly by Mercy11 and Jmundo. These are not the first time that Mercy11 deletes inconvenient truths. Please see that talk page above for other editors with similar problems.

Oscar Lopez Rivera, who also had been named in the indictment as part of the conspiracy, was still a fugitive at the time. One of those arrested in Evanston, Maria Haydee Torres, was transferred to the Federal district court in New York to stand trial for the bombing of the Mobil Oil Building which caused the death of 26 year old Charles Steinberg. [27] Investigators determined the dynamite used in the Mobil Oil bombing had originally been stolen from a construction site in New Mexico, and was linked to the batch found in the FALN safe house discovered in Chicago in November 1976, and linked to Ida Luz Rodriguez and Oscar Lopez Rivera.[28]

López was apprehended, initially for a minor traffic violation, in Glenview Illinois in 1981. [29] Alfredo (Freddie) Mendez, one of the FALN members arrested in Evanston, who cooperated with authorities, and the presentencing report of Oscar Lopez Rivera identified him as one of the leaders of the FALN, and noted: Lopez has been personally involved in bombing and incendiary attacks across the country ...(and had been) a key trainer in bombing, sabotage and other techniques of guerilla warfare. He has set up a series of safehouses and bomb factories across the country, the searches of which have uncovered literally hundreds of pounds of dynamite and other forms of high explosive, blasting caps, timing devices, huge caches of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, disguises, stolen and altered identity documents, and the proceeds of the armed robberies of locations such as a National Guard Armory, Chicago's Carter-Mondale Re-Election headquarters, radio and communications companies, as well as a variety of stolen vehicles.[30]

At his trial 1980–81, López and the other Chicago-based FALN companions were not tied to specific bombings. However, over the next decade, FALN activities resulted in 72 actual bombings, 40 incendiary attacks, 8 attempted bombings and 10 bomb threats, resulting in 5 deaths, 83 injuries, and over $3 million in property damage. OLR was convicted of seven criminal counts: Seditious Conspiracy Interference with Interstate Commerce by Threats or Violence. Carrying Firearms During the Commission of Seditious Conspiracy and Interference with Interstate Commerce by Violence. Interstate Transportation of a Stolen Vehicle(s).

While serving his sentence he was convicted of participating in a conspiracy to escape from the U.S. Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. The specific crimes surrounding these counts include the transportation of explosives with intent to kill and injure people, and to destroy government buildings and property; aiding and abetting travel in interstate commerce to carry on arson; and using a telephone to carry on arson. The specific criminal counts were: Conspiracy to Escape Transport of Explosives (four charges).[31]

Declaring his status as a prisoner of war, he refused to participate in the proceedings.[25] López Rivera was given a 70-year federal sentence for seditious conspiracy and other charges.[32] Among the other convicted Puerto Rican nationalists there were sentences of as long as 90 years in Federal prisons for offenses including sedition, possession of unregistered firearms, interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, interference with interstate commerce by violence and interstate transportation of firearms with intent to commit a crime.[2] None of those granted clemency were convicted in any of the actual bombings. Rather, they had been convicted on a variety of charges ranging from bomb making and conspiracy to armed robbery and firearms violations.[10] They were all convicted for sedition.[32][33]

While López Rivera does not deny or confirm his affiliation with the FALN, he disowns any personal involvement in the bombing deaths. The authorities have never been able to convict anyone for the most prominent bombing for which the FALN took responsibility , the Fraunces Tavern bombing in 1975.[34] The 1975 bombing at Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan killed four people: Harold H. Sherburne, age 66; Frank Connor, age 33; James Gezork, age 32; and Alejandro Berger, age 28. Joseph F. Connor, the son of one of the dead at Fraunces Tavern, has played an instrumental role in blocking the release of a man he considers in part responsible for his father's death, and who has never expressed contrition for those actions.[35]

---

In addition Mercy11 claims that this has been arbitrated. Nonsense. Let me quote Wikishagniks words in the prior arbitration:

Technically the statement quoted by Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) (i.e. Oscar López Rivera is convicted of violent crimes) has to be removed from the article, not because of WP:SYNTH but because of WP:PRIMARY. Court documents such as court rulings, US Parole Commission, statement on denial of Parole in 2011, Department of Justice document etc. are all Primary sources of information. Reliable secondary and tertiary sources include books, magazines, journals etc. Rococo do you have any reliable secondary sources that say that Oscar López Rivera was convicted of violent crimes? --Wikishagnik (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

My response to his question is that the house report is a secondary source, augmenting the validity of the US Parole Commission. It is verifiable here [8] and has been published as a book [9]. But ultimately I am going to argue that the best description of the charges for which someone was convicted are the statements of the court. This is not a transcript of hearsay. This is not an accusation. These are the charges for which he was convicted.

The other point I would disagree emphatically with Wikishagnik is what he attributes as reliable sources: 1)Osacar Lopez Rivera (sic) (1 February 2013). Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance. PM Press. pp.9–.ISBN 978-1-60486-833-3.

This is an obviously biased source? It claims OLR was tortured.

He then says one author only mentions sedition. The question is: is Wikishagnik claiming that he was not convicted of armed robbery? His next reference cites armed robbery? This is confusing, he makes a conclusion about something not even commented on, and then goes on to use a source (Joy James) that does comment on it, and because it does not use the word that he wants in that article, then dismisses the concern. Even though he can look it up: robbery is classified by the Department of Justice as a violent offense. [10] So are we saying if an article states that OLR was convicted in Chicago, but does not say that Chicago is in Illinois, therefor he was not convicted in Illinois. I do not accept the logic. Again the logic is simple. OLR was convicted of Robbery. Robbery is (equals) a violent crime. OLR was convicted of a violent crime.

He then states that all three authors focus more on the conspiracy angle and stay clear from concluding that OLR is charged with violent crime. The House report includes dozens of signatories s(authors); are we keeping numerical count of authors to establish a point?

Finally he cites a Huffington Post blog post. That, in general, is an source that should be treated with extreme caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. (see WP:Primary) It has as much validity as article in American Spectator that contradict Wikishagnik's assertion. But in addition, there is plenty of evidence that the blog post he cites is full of bias, for example, take the statement:

López Rivera was convicted on conspiracy charges I cite the House report, DOJ Parole commission, you can read the text independently of the House and Senate votes cited in Bill Clinton Pardon Controversy "Congressional Record — HOUSE" H8019, United States Government Printing Office, 1999-09-09 and "Congressional Record — SENATE" S18018. The Blog post fails to recall the robbery conviction, that should underscore this source as biased. It then reports that they were not linked to any deaths of injuries. This is not a ringing endorsement of non-violence. Then he recalls that co-conspirators Marie Haydée Beltrán Torres and Carlos Alberto Torres, were not part of the Clinton pardon (because, ironically, at least in the case of the former, she had caused deaths). Then the article compares OLR to Nelson Mandela. I am not here to compare anyone to universally adored world statesmen, my recourse is to the plain stated facts.

I do not believe, given the prior actions of Mercy11, he will compromise and remove the statement that OLR was convicted of a violent crime.

This is a straightfoward point. I disagree with Wikishagnik's decision and have detailed replies above to all his objections. In the discussion above, he uses poor, biased secondary sources over factual primary sources; that is not the policy in WP:Primary.

Ultimately my main point is that the House report serves as a verifiable, secondary source for the information I place in the article. If there is going to be a consensus, my points are that:

• Robbery is a violent crime, OLR was convicted of robbery, therefore OLR was convicted of a violent crime.
• Seditious conspiracy without the detail sounds like a quaint dissension by a conscientious objector. The conspiracy here involved bombing. Individuals in the conspiracy, but not pardoned by Clinton, were convicted, at least one, of killing a bombing victim. The group affiliated with the conspiracy, the FALN, claimed bombings that killed over six persons.
• The article claims some say he is a political prisoner. I can cite people who think he is a violent criminal, engaged in a conspiracy that killed and maimed individuals. Why is one more valid than the other when both cite biased opinions? I think the article should have room for both opinions. Again the statement above can be cited to O'Connor's article in Breitbart com; why is that not as valid as the Huffington Post entry cited by Wikishagnik?Rococo1700 (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing by consensus

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)