Talk:Filiberto Ojeda Ríos

Contentious?

Recently an editor attempted to the add the following to the article, "...(FOR was one) of the founders of the FALN (a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group which fought to transform Puerto Rico into a communist state during the 1970s)." This was reverted with the edit summary stating that it was "Contentious material lacking secondary sources". I am curious, since this was the plainly self-stated goal of the FALN[1], how is this material "contentious"? Hammersbach (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The source, latinamericanstudies is not a secondary/reliable source. The particular webpage doesn't have attribution for the document in question. If the material is not contentious then I believe plenty of secondary sources will sustain the statement. Wikipedia is not a depository of fringe ideas. I will keep reverting the material per WP:BLP. I urge the editor in question to read WP:BLP and WP:OR. --Jmundo (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I trust the Chicago Tribune is reliable enough?[2] Hammersbach (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see the word "communist" ever mentioned in the Chicago Tribune article you are proffering. The word "terrorist" is not found in the Tribune article either. (And, BTW, even if "terrorist" was found in the Tribune article it means nothing, since "terrorist" is a POV label. We *can* use sources using it but only report that such-and-such said they were terrorist, but *not* to alleged they actually were because the such-and-such individual has to have the authority to make such determination/allegation to be taken seriously/officially. For example, prominent John Doe writer from prominent Big City Times newspaper could say that George Washington was a mentally retarded, but does it matter if John Doe did not have a degree in Mental Health and had an extensive track record of successfully diagnosing and treating such disease? It is shameful that so-called longstanding editors are so obfuscated by their own indoctrination that they fall for such "terrorist" claims easier than a 10-year-old falling for the Santa-Claus-is-real story.) It is such lack of reliability that makes the statement contentious for User:Jmundo, and makes it contentious for me too. Mercy11 (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And it has been determined that original citation is a reliable secondary source, [3] Hammersbach (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Excuse me? No such "determination" ever came out of that discussion. Several editors shared their opinions but there was no consensus, let alone clear consensus, which would be more in line with your "it has been determined" qualification. No offense, but to state that an isolated posting of an (alleged) original document allegedly from the FALN coming exclusively from a single source (i.e., never confirmed by anyone else, not even the US Govt) and, namely, also a sole university professor's personal webpage, a professor known for his radical ultra-right views against anything Cuban, anything socialist and anything communist can hardly be considered by any NPOV editor to be anything but questionable at best and really brings the fairness of your judgement into question. The discussion over there ended in a stalemate with multiple editors shooting in different directions and with the one radical editor that took the stubborn stance and sided with the source being reliable never retuning to debunk the much more enlightened thoughts of editors that followed him. The fact that the quote is still in the article shouldn't give you the idea that it has been accepted by the other editors here (as you can see). At Wikipedia we do not wholeheartedly and unconditionally embrace as reliable sources with such a laundry bag of stigma surrounding it, especially when, as in this case, its reliability has been brought into question by several (established) editors. When there is a decisive agreement that the source is reliable, then you can make the sort of "mission accomplished", "it has been determined", statement above. Nothing personal, its the way we do "business" at Wikipedia. Mercy11 (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be curious to see how many editors would agree with your assessment of that discussion. I know I got a good chuckle! :-) Hammersbach (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV banner

Additional editors will be drawn to this group of FALN articles, e.g, Oscar Lopez Rivera, by the tag. This is happening slowly. Progress toward neutralizing its tone isn't helped by reversions from the same group of editors who have controlled the article's content in the past. Eudemis (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the above comment. The tag should remain. Hammersbach (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't throw around POV banners to draw other editors or merely because we concur with someone else's opinion. You place the banner when you have identified brought up and started a discussion of a specific POV issue in this talk page, something you failed to do. [[[WP:IJDLI]] is not a specific POV issue, and that's what appears you have identified so far. When you identify such significant POV per WP:NPOVD, then placement of the banner will be in order. Identify the issue to be resolved and then we can reinstate the banner. Mercy11 (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The issues concerning the neutrality of this article, specifically the lack thereof, is ongoing. Please see the applicable sections above on this page. Hammersbach (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I don't see any such ongoing issues. Remember, if you put up the banner it is your responsibility to back it up. "See above" is ambiguous and unhelpful. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

First, you are misapplying WP:Burden. Please reread the policy at your leisure. Second, you have been an active participant in the discussions dealing with the lack of neutrality of this article. I am sure that a simple cursory review of the previous discussions will be more than enough to bring yourself back up to speed. Cheers, Hammersbach (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Objection with the sources

Eudemis, what is your objection with the sources HERE (UN) and HERE (Puerto Rico Commission on Civil Rights). You are an establsihed editor, and could had hopefully been more proactive. I can't see a valid reason why you would remove those sources. Do you care to elaborate? I also left detailed edit summaries which you can review. Mercy11 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference one is a press release and not even an official document of the United Nations. It is not referenced in any reliable secondary sources and certainly should not be used as a reference itself. Reference 2: There is no secondary source that reports anything about the contents of this commission's report. The report itself is not a reliable secondary source. It should not be included in the article at all unless some WP:RS report its contents. It was reported that the Commission intended to release a report but nothing (that I can find) about the contents of the report once it was released. A long time (6 years) had passed since the events occurred and interest in the story may have waned.

The largest 10 U.S. newspapers in terms of circulation are here.[4] While it is certainly possible citations to these can be wrong and/or unbalanced, the chances of that are far less than say citations to non reference books and special interest publications.Eudemis (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont see anything in WP:RS that states a document has to be "official" to meet the criteria of WP:RS. I also do not see anything there stating press releases are outside the WP:RS universe. I disagree with you on the lack of reliability of the PRCDC Report. If you still oppose its inclusion, and in the spirit of NPOV, we can take it to WP:RSN - together with the FBI report of course, since we could allege the same wild argument about the DoJ report, but times 2 since its source is a party to the dispute over FOJ's death. Frankly, I find it amusing you object to including the CDC Report since its release was foretold by numerous sources, and the news media also reported when it was finally released. A cite to that effect was even included in the article. I dont see anything in WP:RS regarding sources must come from the 10 largest U.S. newspapers, which seems to be what you are alleging. I dont understand what point you are trying to make with that statement. Mercy11 (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A press release is not an objective secondary source with a reputation for fact checking. More often than not, they are released to influence public opinion in some way, not to inform. (Example: I can issue a press release on Rios death and post it on the Internet and it would receive the same level of coverage as this one did.) In this case the actual WP:RS ignored this release completely as I don't believe any media outlet reported it.

I'm not aware of any WP:RS that reported on the contents of PR Civil Rights Commission report. To which publications are you referring when you assert, "and the news media also reported when it was finally released?" The report by the DOJ and, more importantly, its contents were widely reported in spite of its anti climatic conclusions clearing the FBI. I'm not sure we should be citing anything from the DOJ Report directly either. I believe that was simply the result of having so much of the PRCRC's report being directly cited and included in the article.Eudemis (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In principle, I think that official UN reports should be considered RS. That said, ad hoc UN sub-committees should not be confused with the "United Nations" as a body, and their PR output should be treated with great care. There is a big difference between the output of UN political committees and the output of UN staff researchers. I trust the latter but not the former. The situation is analogous in the US to the Congressional Research Service and a party caucus. One is RS; the other is propaganda. In this case, if no report was ever issued, I see no reason to cite a press release announcing that a report is forthcoming.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Mercy in the fact that a press release can be considered a reliable source as long as said press release comes from media which is pushing a specific ideology. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The UN press release is being used here to substantiate a claim about third-party attitudes. If those entities released their own press releases, then I would agree to include.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

Regarding this edit, his nationality is Puerto Rican and, invoking WP:IAR, it should appear listed because many editors (and many readers) still argue that PR is part of the US (which it isn't) and which would make his nationality American if we just go by birthplace, yet he was fighting the US Govt as a Puerto Rican, not as an American. Because his notability has to do with this precise matter of a nationality seprate from the US nationality the entry should be allowed to be displayed. Thank you Mercy11 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Mercy11, The subject is known for disagreements with the U.S. which is why the organizations he led are listed in the infobox. Are there sources that list his nationality as only Puerto Rican and not a U.S. national? Did he legally renounce his U.S. nationality? I don't see any mention of his nationality or citizenship in the article. Per H:IB, the infobox should only contain info cited in the article. Is it accurate to only list one nationality in the infobox if he has multiple? I think the best and most simple situation is to leave that parameter out of the infobox. Readers can infer that he was born, raised, and died on the island. TJMSmith (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. I agree, though on grounds different from those you are arguing. Net effect, though, is the same. We will need to revisit this later, most likely. thx, Mercy11 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Commission report

Removed from the article and pasted below. Is it confirmed that the report below is under a public domain license? If not, it is a copy violation in it's current state. TJMSmith (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

1. The FBI used excessive force,
2. The FBI used military-grade weapons in the arrest of a civilian,
3. Although the FBI claims that "Mr. Ojeda Ríos was the first shooter", the first shooter was the FBI,
4. The arrest of Mr. Ojeda Ríos could have occurred without resorting to violence,
5. The FBI knew Mr. Ojeda Ríos was mortally wounded but it was negligent in providing him with medical assistance,
6. The FBI blocked available medical personnel on the premises from assisting Mr. Ojeda Ríos,
7. The FBI blocked access to the events by the news media as well as by members of the Government of Puerto Rico in a disproportionate and unnecessary manner,
8. The FBI failed to provide a news media liaison and took measures to make it impossible for photojournalists to do their work,
9. The FBI made demands to agencies of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico which, had they been fulfilled, would have represented a violation of civil rights,
10. The FBI blocked access to the adjacent residential areas endangering the lives and safety of children, the elderly and handicapped residents of the area,
11. The FBI marginalized the assistance of the Puerto Rico Police in the operative, and treated personnel from the Government of Puerto Rico with a disparaging and arrogant demeanor,
12. Despite the lack of a formal request to the highest levels of the Puerto Rico Police, it appears improbable that the Puerto Rico Police was unaware that the FBI's was preparing to carry an operative against Mr. Ojeda Ríos,
13. The FBI was unjustified in delaying access to the scene by investigators of Puerto Rico's Instituto de Ciencias Forenses (Institute of Forensic Sciences, ICF) in violation of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's laws mandating access to a scene by the ICF prior to the removal of a body,
14. The FBI operative caused the illegal killing of Mr. Filiberto Ojeda Ríos

Source: Informe Final sobre la Investigacion de los Sucesos occ=urridos en el Municipio de Hormigueros el 23 de septiembre de 2005 donde resulto muerto el ciudadano Filiberto Ojeda Ríos, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico/Comision de Derechos Civiles, 31 March 2011; revised 22 September 2011. pp. 136-40. Archived