Talk:Oscar López Rivera/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Adding Terrorism in the United States Category

OLR was part of an organization that set off over a hundred bombs in US cities, that killed 5, and created fear, if not terror, in many ordinary citizens. Tens of thousands of workers were evacuated on August 2, 1977 from buildings in central Manhattan [1] after Terrorist bombs placed. If this person does not qualify to fall in the category of Terrorism in the United States, then who does? George Metesky, ahh he only placed some three dozen bombs? The weathermen?

Helpsome is an editor who tends to delete but not follow through with cogent arguments. If I can quote his words, he said nobody agrees with me. Why then are there other editors mediating? Why are reliable sources in agreement with us? Why did members of congress elected from districts representing over 90% of Americans agree with the term terrorist? Why did the Representative in congress for the People of Puerto Rico agree with the term? I think we can present the fact that some people see him as a freedom fighter, but there is a widespread opinion that the reason we know about OLR is because of his terrorist activities.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"Helpsome is an editor who tends to delete but not follow through with cogent arguments." Take your arrogance and personal attacks somewhere else. There are multiple instances on this talk about people being uncomfortable using the term "terrorist" in this article. You have no consensus at all to add such a loaded term to the article. Get a consensus before smearing someone with the term "terrorist". Helpsome (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, the reason I smeared you is because of the comments you have left, including the one that I cited above. Care to defend yourself? Next, there is a mediation ongoing on the use of the word terrorist to describe ORL. But there is little doubt that FALN would fall into most definitions of terrorism. Please see the mediation page for comments by Eudemis that point out how broadly the term terrorism is used in the press and literature to describe FALN. I mention the press, because we should attribute to the New York Times and Boston globe etc, a greater degree of neutrality in the question. That is in addition to resolutions in the US congress passing by over 90% of legislators that used the word terrorist to describe those offered clemency, including OLR as terrorists. Ultimately while the word makes you wince, the following is true: OLR was convicted of being part of a conspiracy, in which an organization, the FALN set off over a hundred bombs and killed five people. Most of the bombs were placed in public places. Thousands of persons had their lives threatened. They broke in at gunpoint into the offices of a presidential campaign and after taking lists of donors, they sent them threatening letters. I am not sure what is your definition of not belonging in the category of terrorism in the united states? what category do you suggest otherwise? Rococo1700 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Since this article is not about the FALN, it doesn't matter at all if Oscar Lopez Rivera was a member of an organization (FALN) that set off 100s of bombs or one that set off Millions of bombs, nor does it matter if the FALN killed 5 people or 5 million, nor if the FALN was labeled a terrorist organization or not. This article is not about FALN, so it doesn't matter what the FALN was called. The issue for this article is, "Was Oscar Lopez Rivera labeled a terrorist?" Then the argument that some editors have made (and I paraphrased) is "Oscar Lopez Rivera was labeled terrorist by some members of congress, by some in the media, by some of the relatives of those killed/hurt in bombings of the FALN." However, labeling someone a terrorist doesn't make him a terrorist. WP:OR demands a greater level of WP:V than that. Oscar Lopez Rivera was never charged with terrorism in a court of law. He was not charged with killing or hurting anyone - ever. As such, it is WP:OR to link him to anything that makes any association between him and terrorism. There are some notable people (Congressmen, for example) who have called him a terrorist - that is a fact. And as a fact, that has already been stated in the article. As such, any categorization linking him to terrorism will be removed from the article and/or its talk page, per WP:OR. Mercy11 (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mercy11, those arguments would be worthwhile in mediation, but here you are just reverting back to your point of view demands. This is an argument that is being discussed in Mediation, to which you were invited but fail to join. The problem with your logic is that the only reason that there is an entry for OLR in wikipedia is because he was convicted for a conspiracy that included membership in a organization (FALN) that set off bombs in civilian targets, and killed innocent civilians. The evidence, including the testimony of one of his recruits and paperwork found in one of the bomb factories, showed that he was one of the leaders of the group. When OLR was arrested as Romero Barcelo indicated in his testimony to congress, there were no terrorism statutes. The argument in mediation is that if the general perception in the unbiased media is that he and the FALN are terrorists, what is the argument. My recommendation is before you declare yourself arbiter or what stays or doesn't stay, then join mediation. You can throw all the abbreviations you want thereRococo1700 (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding Book Award editors

The edit HERE is properly sourced and directly related to this subject. BTW, the editors are Outstanding Book Awards editors according to the book's publisher HERE. The Outstanding Book Award issue is not the basis for supplying that citation, however; award or not, the quote stands on its own, per WP:RS. As the editor in question stated in his edit summary HERE ("the source does still need to be good and reliable"), if there is objection as to the source's reliability, he can take it HERE. Mercy11 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

MERCY11 you have been asked to join mediation for this and many other issues

You and Sarason were invited to joint mediation to sort out the bias of this article. I believe that your edit above is another example of your continued bias to plaster any and every petition for OLR's release, but yet you fail completely and have tried repeatedly to delete well-sourced and equally valid facts about OLR and violence and OLR's participation in a terrorist campaign.

You engage in edit wars, but will not join mediation. I am not sure what the policy of Wikipedia is, but I do not look on your behavior with much respect. Join the mediation!Rococo1700 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Rococo, a fellow Wikipedian had a legitimate question about the Outstanding Book Award claim, and I answered it - Is there a problem with that?

I suggest you watch when accussing others of bias when your edits are reflective of someone crusading to bash this biography of this living person, and are tainted by continuously resorting to WP:SYNT in your claim of "violent criminal". Your violations to the WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies is what has triggered other editors to revert your edits. You now resent that other editors have not joined your 3rd (Mediation) most recent attempt at external resolution, but why would they want to when you failed to live by the conclusions of the 2 previous DR/Ns you filed and where the 2 volunteers there also ruled against you position? So, the editors opposing your POV are "danmed if they do and danmed if they don't"... You have created an element of lack of credibility for yourself.

Your self-admitted statement of lack of respect towards another Wikipedian, as you did above, also leaves much to be desired. BTW, your edits HERE, HERE, and HERE required edit summaries which you seem to have also overlooked. Mercy11 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I also noticed two recent "grammatical edits" by Rococo which were not grammatical at all - they were an attempt to insert material that misrepresented and overstated the content of the underlying cite. This has been typical and consistent behavior. Perhaps administration should consider a topic ban. Sarason (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sarason and Jmundo fail to join a mediation effort with multiple editors

There is an easy way for you to fix all the problems in this article. Mediate a solution. Hey don't mediate with me if you don't want, mediate with Neosilber and Froglich, and others. Look you try to use procedure and threats, call me names: anything, anything not to discuss the issues. I can cite you an article in American Spectator, a US congress report, a monograph by Robert Belli, interviews with FBI agents, parole board statements, now even a testimony by the sole representative from Puerto Rico in Congress - all of whom state OLR is violent, but you Will not allow it, because of your bias. Again there is a forum for mediation on this article. There are multiple editors involved, get involved!!!!! Rococo1700 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sarason declined mediation, the statement above is not correct

The recent deletion was done without consensus, without notification except an ad hominem attack. You cannot state that some congressmen favor clemency when congress voted overwhelmingly to oppose clemency. This is part of the bias of the article. Do not change the present version without consensus.

As I stated before the article should be completely revised and we can start from a new one, since what we have now does not meet consensus. As always, I encourage all editors to this page to edit by consensus, with proper sourcing, and with an honest intent.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is consensus is needed? Seems to me that to say "some" congressmen favor clemency is just another way of saying that congressmem "overwhelmingly" opposed clemency, and "overwhelmingly" is what you, Rococo, have been supporting. Why make an Everest out of a molehill? Seems to me, Rococo, that Sarason is danmed if he does, and danmed if he doesn't. Is that it? Mercy11 (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please observe and respect the results of DRs and Mediation Rulings

Rococo, the mediation request was rejected and the DR guidelines with respect to Primary Sources are very clear. Yet again, you are ignoring the results of the processes (DRs and Mediation requests) which you initiated. At some point, you need to acknowledge and respect this process. If you don't acknowledge other editors, or DR guidelines, or Mediation results, or any entities that do not agree with you, it becomes impossible to work with you.

I urge you respectfully (I am not "threatening," I am urging) to please stop reverting other editors, and inserting Primary Source material, and ignoring all the feedback that you are receiving. Please consider this good faith advice. Sarason (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me Sarason, but you are reverting me. I do not take the rejection of mediation, as a rejection of my entries into the article. All those that joined mediation agreed with the changes. That does not give you the right to modify the article without consensus. You are reverting without seeking consensus. Again my preference is to rewrite the article in entirety.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the page ownership

Rococo, please stop exercising PAGE OWNERSHIP of this article. Please do not revert sourced and cited editing, that clarifies the subject matter. It is becoming impossible to work with you on this page.Sarason (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Full protection

The article has been fully protected for 7 days due to the edit war. The protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment or using other techniques of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of sourced material about the nature of the conspiracy

Sarason, I am sorry to continue to disagree with you in using a the House Report as a source for the description of the nature of the conspiracy. The house report is not written by people with direct involvement. It involves multiple authors. It has as much validity as any of the other opinions voiced in the article. Again, I have compromised already by converting the fact that he was convicted of a violent crime, into an opinion that he was convicted of violence, even though I think a criminal conviction is not the same as a mere opinion, at least in the United States. If you want I can source such opinions to editorials about the clemency decision, but none of these has the details, the crisp verifiability of the house report.

I think people who hear that he was convicted only of a seditious conspiracy, probably speculate that OLR was merely singing dissident songs by a campfire. No, the nature of the conspiracy was the reason the convictions carried such heft. The conspiracy included participation in an organizaton that set off bombs that killed and maimed individuals. Now I have cited a number of ways we can arrive at that fact through many sources. I prefer the House report, and disagree that it is a primary document.

But hey, you are welcome to join in the referral I made for mediation. You previously offered some vague warnings against me, if I continued to try to edit this entry. I am offering you a forum in which we both can get this disagreement mediated. Why won't you work in that forum?Rococo1700 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have a minor question. Regardless of all the theories expressed was López Rivera's conviction and sentence to prison specifically 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? I haven't been on the computer too much lately and just wondered what is going on (without reading all of opinions written here of course) Tony the Marine (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and later, he was convicted of various charges for being active in a violent escape plan. I am not a lawyer, but it appears that the DOJ strategy was not to try to pin specific bombings on specific people, since they had only evidence for one or two bombings, (e.g. Haydee Beltran Torres' fingerprints at the lethal Mobil Oil bombing) and the only turncoat/informer was new to the group. But as part of the trial they did charge him with a conspiracy that included a number of acts, and then blamed all the members of the group. In part that seems to have motivated Clinton's offer of clemency to some individuals, because while the individual roles in the bombings may have been less, they all got similar conspiracy convictions. Robert Bella's article on how the arrests were made gives a description of the cellular nature of the group, and how not every one knew what everyone else was doing. Thus ultimately, seditious conspiracy seems like a charge you would assign to someone who plots verbally to overthrow a government. In the FALN cases, the conspiracy convictions include a list of the acts involved in the conspiracy.Rococo1700 (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• I see. Here is a statement which I am having trouble with accepting as not being POV:

a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group which fought to transform Puerto Rico into a communist state during the 1970

What bothers me with the word terrorist is that a person or group may be considered as terrorist by some people, groups and countries, while on the same hand these same people may be considered as heroes and patriots by other people. groups and countries. Therefore the word terrorist, which in my opinion is a POV term, should be removed as required by Wikipedia policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that any group that randomly seeks to damage property as well as injure and kill non combatants for political ends is a terrorist group. Granted that someone very invested in the same political cause might see them as heroic but not someone who is impartial. What term do disinterested, reliable third party sources use to describe FALN? "the now-disbanded terrorist group" Chicago Sun-Times[2];"F.A.L.N. Puerto Rican Terrorists Suspected in New Year Bombings" New York Times [3];"The defendants are believed to be members of F.A.L.N., a terrorist organization that seeks independence for Puerto Rico." New York Times [4]; "In '99, Holder pushed clemency for terrorists FALN members were linked to U.S. bombings" Chicago Tribune [5]. I don't think the term is misused here as it appears regularly in reliable sources in connection with FALN. Eudemis (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Eudemis argument is convincing. I would urge Mercy11 to join the mediation to change the article and be paient rather that unilaterally change an article that has a number of editors involved in a joint process.Many of your edits will be reversed because they continue to express only your bias.Rococo1700 (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mercy's editing has included many of the views express by several editors here including you. Can you more specific is your accusation of bias? --Jmundo (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious that you do not see the litany of problems I mentioned above that are now part of the article???

1. Nationality issue: OLR claimed Puerto Rican citizenship but was convicted as an American citizen, which was what he was living as.
2. The issue of who opposed the clemency: Republicans versus the overwhelming majority of congress. Mercy11 reverted that over and over again
3. What OLR was convicted of: not only sedition, and not a conspiracy to overthrow the government of the US in Puerto Rico
4. the inappropriate labeling of OLR as non-violent
5. the inappropriate labeling of OLR as a political prisoner, and not identifying that as a biased opinion not shared by many of his peers

Anyway, we have more progress to make on this article before we remove the neutrality banner. There should be a mention of what the plans for escape from prison entailed, included the weaponry he requested. I believe the nature of the conspiracy as detailed by his conviction should be spelled out. Rococo1700 (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• To respond to your reply above, let me say that your POV is reflected in what you are calling "problems" with the article:

1. You argued in favor of replacing Puerto Rican Nationality with American citizenship based on the same conspiracy theory claims against OLR by the FBI (and that of its allie, the US District's Attorney). They are not the independent view of the majority or even a minority of scholars who have studied the OLR case, but primary source legalese from the courtroom. You failed to WP:AGF and accussed other editors of siding with OLR for stating his nationality was Puerto Rican when no such anti-FBI argument had ever been orchestrated. On the contrary, the US and world media at large call him a Puerto Rican Nationalist, and never your presummed "American Nationalist" or even "American national". But in your malice, you passed WP:AGF over. In any event, the community dismissed your allegations as a trivial fight over nothing and decided to just remove any reference to nationality altogether. I find it amusing that you continue to reverberate that issue that so long ago went away for everyone else, including your canvassed wikibuddies.
2. Opposition to clemency: No one here is objecting to including that the "overwhelming" majority of Congress opposed the clemency, but you have to have a source for that statement ("the overwhelming majority of Congress") because it is your own fabrication deducted from analyzing Congressional Record raw numbers. Find a third-party source that states that and the claim is in. Otherwise, as we stated this over a month ago, it is no more than your own WP:OR. If no one reported it so, Wikipedia is not going to be the first to do so. Your OR in this has the effect of unfairly supporting your own personal POV, and that is not acceptable.
3. Conviction of Sedition. You don't seem to understand that sedition was the anchor charge that he was convicted of and that any other charges were made within the scope of the sedition charge. To illustrate, the criminal processing is analogous to someone being convicted of drug possession and then also convicted of hiding evidence, lying to law enforcement authorities, driving with an open bottle of beer, etc. Point being, the other convictions were made in the context of his seditious conspiracy conviction. Unfortunately you appear to be in a state of denial and I am afraid you may never "understand" this.
4. OLR is non violent - no this is not an inappropriate labeling becuase there are sources that state so. That you just don't like it is another story. Another example of your POV-pushing.
5. OLR is a political prisoner - ditto. no, this is not an inappropriate labeling because there are sources that state so. Again, that you just don't like it is another story. Another example of your POV-pushing.

And finally what you call "progress" is a dillusion. You should stop your POV-pushing. Get over those 5 points and you will be making progress. Mercy11 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes in Introduction and Conviction paragraphs

Again, if Mercy11 and Sarason wish to discuss facts, they should have joined mediation, rather than Sarason persisting in ad hominem attacks. Please by all means open a mediation for this article. I will persist in introducing facts into the article. You have warned me in the past, but the prior mediation which you declined to join would have been a perfect avenue to address your issues.

The introductory paragraph introduces the reader to the controversy: the prior paragraph only mentioned congressman who favor clemency. I introduce the fact that the vast majority of congress opposed clemency to OLR, including the prior congressman from Puerto Rico, who held the same post as Pierluisi. If Pierluisi's position is valid, then so is that of the majority of congress, from both parties, which represents the majority of OLR's fellow citizens. Also note prior versions of these paragraphs falsely stated only or mostly Republicans opposed clemency. It was an ordeal to get that false notion changed.

The conviction paragraph was flagged for expansion, I use both the NYT article and the Roberta Belli monograph to expand on the conspiracy of which OLR was a part of. Prior articles had inferred that somehow OLR was not involved in violent acts, but his connection to a bomb-making factory and his conspiracy to escape using bombs and weapons puts this issue to rest. He was part of a terrorist conspiracy (according to congress), or a violent conspiracy. If you need, we can cite the parole board for OLR and their summary of his conspiracy.

Again, Sarason, you need to argue the facts, not just delete well sourced material. In terms of Hammersbach's point, I think using OLR's own words should suffice as evidence, although I think the FALN documents should also be valid. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately Rococo, you have a documented history of ignoring DRs (DRs filed by you) and the guidelines provided therein. You are gaming the system. Sarason (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Regarding the deletion of well-sourced material -- over the past week alone, Rococo has deleted 12,079 BYTES of sourced material. During this same time period I deleted 1,440 bytes - and nearly half of that (585 bytes) was in support of an edit which Rococo had made, with respect to a Twitter campaign in Spain. Rococo has thus deleted 8.5 TIMES (850%) more material than I over the past week. If we exclude the edit in which I supported Rococo, then he has deleted 14 TIMES (1,400%) more material than I, over the past week alone. The numbers don't lie, Rococo. You should be more careful with your accusations. Sarason (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sarason, how much have Mercy11 and you deleted in the last week? Anyway, why do I care. Also care to comment on the twitter issue? the nationality issue and how it was agreed upon?

Argue the facts, the data in the article. The paragraph describing the nature of his conviction has expanded? Any concerns?

The introductory paragraph is now more balanced. One option would be to delete all the specifics of the debate regarding clemency and leaving it to later paragraphs, but it has to be then balanced. You can not just delete all the advocacy against clemency and less incarceration, and if you are going to quote those who want to make him free, then it is worthy to quote those who advocate the opposite, specifically with regards to OLR, including high ranking officials, family members of those maimed or killed by the FALN campaigns, and/or law enforcement personnel in official depositions or reports.

I also think this is a good moment to clarify what the first sentence should include, can it include the words Marxist-Leninist, nationalist, terrorist, or revolutionary or all of the above in some fashion. Perhaps we can state that he is considered a nationalist revolutionary by some, and a Marxist-Leninist or Marxist Terrorist by others.

The other issue is whether we can describe that he was convicted for violent crimes. I think that was a great point of contention at the time of clemency. Seditious conspiracy sounds like a crime that could consist of a verbal whispering campaign against the government. In this case the conspiracy included acts such as bombings (some deadly), armed robberies, and threatened kidnappings. I disagree with a former editor's opinion that armed robbery is not a violent crime. The conviction was by a federal court, and the FBI, a federal agency that is part of the US Dept of Justice defines it so. I do not think this is synthesis or novel research. I could quote all sorts of opinions that he is violent, if the former conclusion is not upheld as fit for Wikipedia, but I would like to see multiple editors comment on this in a thoughtful way. Also I think this article may require some type of link that clarifies why the seditious conspiracy count was used in this case. It is relevant to the evaluation of his actions, and explains the severity of the sentence. The same applies to the convictions for conspiracy to escape. Rococo1700 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Here another heading--same topic

What is the point point of creating so many headings for the same topic? What is your agenda by trying to insert the "Marxist" descriptor at the beginning of the text. I don't think nobody here with a straight face can argue that the Marxist ideals are the most important fact about the subject, is not even discussed on the article. Please iluminate me, not only by name calling or writing another wall of text about personal accusations or the behavior of another editors. Show me reliable sources were his Marxist ideals are notable. In other words, is the media covering this subject because he is a communist--Mccarthy style? Are his communist ideals generating news headline? The communist scare is so 1950's, please find something more relevant to discuss. --Jmundo (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Jmundo, in the closing statements of Lopez Rivera's trial, he said, and I quote from the NY Times: Puerto Rico will be a free and socialist country. The sources of Neosiber and Department of Justice documents do assert that they were a Marxist organization. The facts speak for themselves. I do not think Lopez-Rivera can claim direct links to all the nationalist ideology of Albizu Campos, but did espouse its use of violence.

I see nothing in your discussion about my balancing of the introductory paragraph, if you want to discuss items, please do so. As I said, I was open to a mediated solution to the wording of this article, others were not, if you wish to restart mediation, please, dude, by all means. Rococo1700 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Rococo ignored - no, defied - the results of his own prior DRs. Had the "mediated solution" not gone his way, this strongly suggests that Rococo would have defied the result of his own "mediation" as well. Finally, the "mediation" which Rococo pursued was rejected as "an inappropriate dispute for mediation." [6] At that point Rococo returned to his singular, unilateral brand of editing. Rococo is thus being Rococo - with his tendentious and bad faith editing. Hopefully, at some point, Administration will bring this to a close. Sarason (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I find the point that the editor Jmundo is trying to make to be rather, well, peculiar. OLR founded/joined/led the FALN , an organization whose absolute stated political position was the implementation of a Marxist/Leninist state, was it not? Why then would there be some editors who would present such aggressive and "reductive" arguments to try and prevent the inclusion of this well sourced political position in the article? Hammersbach (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Jmundo can correct me if I am wrong, but the point Jmundo is trying to make is that (#1)Rococo is creating a new section heading for the same topic that is already discussed elsewhere in this Talk Page. Jmundo also makes the point that (#2)the word "communism" doesn't belong in the bio because communism and Marxism -the ideology that is agreed upon- are two different ideologies. Jmundo further (#3)objects to the inclusion of OLR's Marxism ideals at the "beginning of the text" (i.e., the first line of the lede) if they are not the most notable part of OLR's bio. Rococo's then responds that OLR was tied to "socialism", takes a short diversion to PAC, and then goes on to talk about his mediation venue again. Sarason then, ignoring Rococo's unrelated PAC diversion and skipping the fact that even socialism is a different ideology from communism, points out that Rococo's venerated mediation was a bad-faith farse as deducted from Rococo's failure to comply with "the results of his own prior DRs". Hammersbach then states that Jmundo's makes a peculiar point because the organization OLR belonged to (the FALN) had Marxism/Lenninist goals yet some editors here (presummably Jmundo included) seek to minimize this "well sourced [Marxism/Lenninist] position".

However, I don't see where Jmundo has prevented, as you claim, that Marxism/Lenninism be included in the article. What I see is Jmundo is objecting to Rococo's oversectionalizing this talk page by creating an excessive number of headings about the same Marxist/communist subject. What I also see Jmundo questioning is that OLR's Marxism ideals are not the most notable piece of OLR's bio, and that -though a part of OLR's ideology- that Marxism doesn't elevate to the point where it merits prominence in the opening statement of the lead. Jmundo specifies that the Marxism label does not even belong in the lead if it is "not even discussed on the article." In summary - and though Jmundo never used these exact words - what Jmundo is saying is that Rococo is behaving as a Disruptive editor. As such, Hammersbach, I am afraid you missed Jmundo's point - but then, again, perhaps I am wrong in my assesment, so let Jmundo . Am I correct Jmundo? Mercy11 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be careful to disassociate "socialism" from "communism" or "marxism" when speaking of Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican Socialist Party is Marxist or Communist-linked; while the Puerto Rican Indepence Party is more aligned with European Social Democratic parties. Thus when OLR spoke in his closing statement that he was Socialist and Independentista, he elevaed them both to defining characteristics of himself. The available documents from the FALN engage in Marxist ideology to justify their bombings against industrial and economic interests.Rococo1700 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

More than just "FALN"

Neosiber, your last comment was written in good faith and I respect that. However, please consider that the comment indicates a reductive view of Oscar Lopez Rivera, and a highly subjective view. That is not a crime, you are a human being and certainly entitled to your own viewpoint. But please consider that all of the following, which are currently mentioned and cited in the article, give the life of OLR a much greater notability and scope than that which you have assigned to it:

• His release has been demanded by 10 Nobel Peace Prize winners, Coretta Scott King, President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, as well as an international coalition of human rights, and religious, labor, and business leaders including the United Council of Churches of Christ, United Methodist Church, Baptist Peace Fellowship, Episcopal Church of Puerto Rico, and the Catholic Archbishop of San Juan.

• The Governor of Puerto Rico, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, the Speaker of the New York City Council and several U.S. Congresspersons have all called for his release.

Clearly, something is going on here that is worth examining. Please factor this into your perspective and approach to this page. Thanks. Sarason (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

All of which is a subset of the fact that he is only famous because of his affiliation with FALN. If he hadn't help start the FALN, none of those people would say anything at all about him. He is famous because of the crimes he committed. Neosiber (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What source do you have for your claim that "he is only famous because of his affiliation with FALN"? Mercy11 (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you feel that his "affiliation" with the FALN was not a significant contributing factor to his fame? Do you believe that there other factors that are exclusive from his "affiliation" with the FALN which would make him notable? Hammersbach (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Now. What I feel doesn't count in Wikipedia. I asked a question about something that does count in Wikipedia, Reliable Sources, and you did not answer it. I will take your failure to produce sources to mean that you do not have them. As such, your claim that "he is only famous because of his affiliation with FALN" is unverifiable and innadmissible per WP:V. As editor Sarason indicated above, the reductive view of OLR that Rococo is presenting is a very subjective one. Wikipedia is not written based on what we "feel" are significant contributing factors, but by what RSs say are significant contributing factors. Reliable Sources aren't subject to the vulnerability of subjectivity that your opinions are. Mercy11 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Mercy11, Every single citation you use about him, exists because he was arrested due to his affiliation with the FALN. Please answer Hammersbach's question. Would OLR have a Wikipedia page were he not a member of the FALN? Is there a single major newspaper article about him prior to his arrest? Rococo1700 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Will we live forever if we found the key to the DNA? Who cares! OLR has an article because he fulfills WP:N, end of the story, not becuase Nosiber makes an unsourced only-famous claim. Sources is what counts in WP, not fallacious hypothetical personal POV claims. Mercy11 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

About the discussion here

I agree with Neosiber that the fact that he was convicted of criminal acts, that were part of a conspiracy that killed 5 innocent citizens and terrorized thousands has to be relevant. In addition, the opinion of congress and of informed citizens has weight. Another point of the debate here is that JMundo says that I should join the debate, that is fine, but as many points above show, Mercy11 is not interested in debating facts, but plasters meaningless WP banners, while blatantly ignoring when those are invoked against him. Examples: nationality label, twitter campaign, etc. Finally, I would say to Jmundo: dude, there was a mediation offered and declined by Sarason and Mercy11, and we are back to the same problem that one makes changes and they (and you) delete without making an argument. Now why does the opinion of one congressman outweigh resolutions of congress supported by 90% of the legislators. It is not balanced, dude? But I am willing to hear your argument, but will not just abide by your arbitrary deletion.

Again if you or Mercy11 or Sarason wish to mediate with us, I am in agreement. In addition, I think Neosiber's approach to this article using a format based on individuals with similar infamy, political terrorism ties, and controversy: I was thinking of actions by US citizens, and would pick on individuals who were convicted of terrorist or anti-government acts prior to 2001, for example, Leon Peltier, Omar Abdel-Rahman come to mind, but one could also use the Unabomber.

JMundo join the discussion, or better yet a mediation, do not just delete. Rococo1700 (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Mercy11 (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is calling for a vote. I called for a mediated discussion. As usual, your WP bannering has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and, in addition, again answer the question: Would OLR merit a Wikipedia web page if he were not a member of the infamous FALN? His biography prior to becoming a fugitive does not merit a Wikipedia page.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:25, 17 June 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)

• • Let me read this right, you idea of consensus is that if the ideas do no fit your agenda then they can not be included. I note that while you say that the House Report is a primary source, you provide no reasoning, no facts to back it up. You only say that editors who have worked on this page, own it, and can decide what is included. Why don't you look at the information and tell me why it is not verifiable, why it is not reflective of the truth. Again, if you do not want me to source the House Report as the citation for showing that OLR was convicted of violent crimes, and involved in a conspiracy that included bombing, I have now a few other sources that I can add. Rococo1700 (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Rococo, you have these matters opened at WP:DR/N - HERE. Please do not keep arguing both old and current (and now also new) matters here in a loose cannon fashion; it doesn't help anyone. The place to discuss this now is at the DR/N. Your multitude of complaints plus your, no offense, wall of texts are not indicative of a dialogue. Please tone down you arguments. This is not a court of law where we re-try individuals that are currently paying their debt to society in prison. At this point the DR/N is the place to address this dispute; not here. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Mercy11, your tone above is nice, but your recurrent deletion of my edits does not correspond. Part of the multitude of complaints is because the evidence for a problem here is overwhelming. Your wall of deletions is not indicative of a dialogue. I notice you have no comments for the ad hominem attacks of Sarason. Oh so be it. Again, I am not relitigating OLRs case. That was done, my point is that the conclusions of the litigation, the conviction statements should be accurately reflected in the article. Again, rather than seeking personal comments, let's stick to the facts of OLR's conviction. Rococo1700 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am pleased to find one point of agreement with Rococo1700. Yes, let us follow the conclusions of the litigation. Here is that conclusion:

Thanks Sarason (talk · contribs) for your inputs. Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) we now have a reliable source which states (Oscar Lopez Rivera).. is imprisoned for the “crime” of seditious conspiracy, again the quote is from the original text. I tried looking up the subject and found another source which says that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government of US by force, but again does not include the term violent crime in its description of charges. A book by Joy James adds armed robbery and lesser charges to conspiracy charges but does not include violent crime anywhere in its description. All three authors focus more on the conspiracy angle and stay clear from concluding that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with violent crime. This list would not include the Huffington Post articlewhich states López Rivera was convicted on conspiracy charges and was not linked to any deaths or injuries related to the bombings (emphasis is mine). Concluding that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with violent crime based on material which is a primary source (WP:PRIMARY) is either Original Research (WP:OR) or Synthesis (WP:SYNTH) depending on interpretation, but is not supported by the vast majority of published material out there. Would there be anything I missed, or you would like to highlight otherwise? --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

After eight days with no response from you Rococo1700 (from April 12 until April 20), the DR was then Closed as stale. This was the DR that you filed Rococo1700, and this was the result. Please read the mediator's language above, which was the final result of your litigation.

Please read in particular, the penultimate sentence in the mediator's final opinion, which found all of your government reports to be a PRIMARY SOURCE:

"Concluding that Oscar Lopez Rivera is charged with violent crime based on material which is a primary source (WP:PRIMARY) is either Original Research (WP:OR) or Synthesis (WP:SYNTH) depending on interpretation, but is not supported by the vast majority of published material out there."

So yes...let us honor and respect the DRs which we ourselves file. Let us honor and respect, the results of those DRs. Otherwise we start to look like hypocrites, wasting the time of good-faith editors. Sarason (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarason, you conveniently ignore comments in the DR:

We have waited for almost two days but have recieved no inputs from the WikiProject Criminal Biography Team. Although this does not rule out any future involvements, lets get started. ... Closed as stale. Can be re-opened if needed. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was busy traveling and did not respond to the comments in a timely fashion, again ultimately speed is not the determinant of correctness. In addition, you dismiss the fact that the DR did not address the present source. It is not true to say that Wikishagnik commented on the House report. He did not. He used to at least two biased and one poor secondary sources: the Joy James and Huffington Post Blog to justify his argument. He may have a different opinion now. Again, my points remain that I do not wish to change Reverend Desmond Tutu's or Tito Kayak's opinion nor should those ideas be removed from the text. My problem is that you remove, among others the overwhelming opinion of the congress of the United States, that clemency should not have been offered to OLR, and one of the main reasons for that is that he was convicted of what the US Department of Justice and the Federal Judiciary defines as violent crimes, and since crimes are legally defined, that is what they are. Next the details of the seditious conspiracy are important for persons to evaluate when understanding why Congress and others oppose clemency. Again these are facts established in a court of law. There is no justification for removing these facts from the article. Again, the repeated deletions of these facts by Jmundo and Mercy11 represent the furthering of a biased agenda, that excludes a true discussion of the facts. I am not going to be traveling anywhere. Please argue the facts. Tell me why armed robbery is not a violent crime and thus why OLR, who was convicted of armed robbery by the Federal Judiciary, and I have provided plenty of citations that substantiate this, is not a violent criminal. You may not like the term, but it is, for you, and inconvenient fact. For example, tell me which source you would feel best corroborates this. Also you neglect the fact that others have considered this article biased. Rococo1700 (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

CONSENSUS

Our time is as valuable as yours, Rococo1700. Every time a DR, or an editorial consensus, or a "request for an edit despite the block on this page" go against you, you try to bury that fact with an enormous filibuster. You think that other editors will not trace the history of our discussion and your attempts to distort it. I'm not going to waste any more time with your filibuster, dissembling and bad faith. I will edit this page by consensus, and other editors will do the same. Sarason (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Rococo, I am afraid Sarason is right. You seem to be alone in your side of this dispute. And, by "this dispute" I mean, every one of the 6 or so points you continue to argue. I can't find a single item where Rococo appears to have strong arguments to his credit. Frankly, the more I read through this Talk Page, the more I find his arguments suffer from WP:PRIMARY. I have learned one thing from this: that OLR appears to have been sentenced to federal prison solely because of his conviction for seditious conspiracy ("guilty by association") and not for any of the other crime. I am looking into that whole thing in more detail right now, wondering - as it be - if perhaps he was charged but never convicted of the other federal charges. Or, if he was charged/convicted of any other offenses but by some other court of law (a State court perhaps???). Since this is a BLP, I would propose that, unless there is total agreement among the sources (even if they are RS's), that is, without contradictory reports, indicating that OLR is serving time for anything else than seditious conspiracy, that every reference to anything but seditious conspiracy be removed from the entire biography. Mercy11 (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A side note: Nowadays we all travel. I don't see how in the world anyone can use that as an excuse for a failed DR/N. Does your mortgage company, Rococo, accept the "travel" excuse to take your payments late without a penalty? Does your fiancee accept that as an excuse for your being 13 days to your wedding her? etc etc etc. In any event, if you are going to travel, Rococo, common sense would tell you not to open a DR/N at that time. Why you did it is beyond me. In any event, in any event (yes, x2), a look at Rococo's contributions shows that Rococo was editing the days when the DR/N was ongoing (21:43, 7 April 2014 THRU 22:09, 20 April 2014); and Rococo edited every single day during that 13 days. Unless I am missing something of astronomical proportions, why Rococo is using travel as an excuse for the DR/N to have been closed because it went stale, sounds kind of disingenuous to me Rococo. Mercy11 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• During the period October 12 - October 20, Rococo1700 made 196 edits in Wikipedia. He made Wikipedia edits on each and every one of those days. But not one of those edits were made into the DR which he himself opened. Mercy11, we already know what we're dealing with here - he is a troll, we all know it. Let us continue editing by consensus.

If Rococo1700 continues with his bad faith editing, we have ample evidence for getting him blocked or banned. Sarason (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarason, when you know mediation is going to go against you, you fail to join mediation. You fail to argue the contents of the article when confronted with evidence against your opinions. Again, the facts are that OLR was convicted by federal courts of armed robbery, and armed robbery in the federal categorization is a violent offense. Hence OLR was convicted of a violent crime. I will continue to argue that only because the facts are straightfoward. Rococo1700 (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sarason will not discuss facts

I would think that my agreement to remove the Puerto Rican Citizenship nationality that was being inserted by Mercy11 was a form of consensus. You are distorting the reality. I insert facts, Mercy11 and Jmundo delete them. They don't look for consensus. rather than ad hominem attacks, you need to discuss the facts.

For example, since the Department of Justice of the United States Federal Government defines robbery as a violent crime.[[7] and OLR was convicted of use of force to commit armed robbery (numerous citations above). Then can we agree that OLR is a violent criminal?

This is straighfoward. If this is not enough for you we can talk about the FALN escape plot (Chicago Tribune 02-27-1988 article by William B Crawford Jr) and debate whether he was convicted there of a violent crime. I have been more than willing to discuss these facts, but all that Jmundo and Mercy11 say is that the facts don't exist or can't be placed in the article. That is not consensus.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Please stop making a new edit entry every time you want to continue the discussion. We are attempting to seek consensus and you are sabotaging every attempt that is made by making a new claim at every turn. You are back to your loose cannon that I told you about just earlier today. It has now gone from just being annoying to a thought that you are deliberately seeking to dispute everyone. If you continue to act in bad faith, you will leave others with no recourse than to report you for a block. Mercy11 (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Again, Mercy11, argue the point of whether you consider the FALN escape plot as being an example of violence or not. The plans involved explosives and guns, and were well documented in the Roberta Belli article. This is only a back-up to the argument that OLR was convicted of armed robbery, a violent crime.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

I did get involved, and expressed my views in the mediation forum. The request for mediation was rejected. [8]

I reverted a recent edit which cited "Mediation" as the basis for the edit. The mediation was rejected, and this edit was (yet again) the same type of Primary Source edit that has been rejected in DRs, by editors on this page, and by Wikipedia policy.

As always, I encourage all editors to this page to edit by consensus, with proper sourcing, and with an honest intent.

Sarason (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sarason did not get involved. He declined mediation. If he wanted to reach a consensus then mediate. He continually deleted well sourced

material, and failed to allow such edits is they did not meet his point of view. But anyway, my main concern is for him to argue the facts in the article.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Mercy11 stop removing well sourced material

The material is well sourced and is how other similar pages are done. In addition stop abusing WP, it's getting ridiculous how much you use them when they aren't even relevant. Neosiber (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter that the FALN info is "well sourced". When "well sourced" info fails WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEDE, and WP:NPOV, we don't include it. Have you failed to notice that your change is controversial? That is it objectionable? Have you done your Talk Page homework such as discussing your proposed change so your change can be implemented? If you have, I have missed that. I suggest you review the WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEDE, and WP:NPOV policies before you go making changes that are controversial. Can you also explain why you state that in your edit summary "WP:OTHERSTUFF does not apply"? Also, I suggest you review Addressing other users in Talk Page heading; you have just violated that policy. When creating a new TP section, editors are instructed not to address other editors in the Talk Page heading. It is also WP:COMMONSENSE. I suggest you become familiar with those policies. You have taken a good first step by entering into a discussion, and that's good. Let's build on that. Perhaps if you explained your edits better, what you are trying to do would be more evident. Mercy11 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Again you abuse the WP. You have a problem, you are insulting and dismissive, you do need a topic ban. Neosiber (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I should also add that you seem to use WPs without actually reading them, because if you had you would notice that WP:OTHERSTUFF has to do with deleting articles. So please use actual arguments that don't rely on WP. Neosiber (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is discussing issues about the article, not about conduct. If you have an issue with my conduct, you can file a complaint at WP:ANI. I am still expecting a response from you on your edit to include FALN qualifiers on the first paragraph of the lead section. Per WP:TPG, it is your turn to show how your arguments meet WP policy: "it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements". Mercy11 (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

So you are skipping over the fact that you use WP without actually reading them. You misrepresented WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Describing the group he help start is relevent to the lede. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." He is only notable because he is part of the FALN, which makes describing FALN relevent. WP:NPOV doesn't apply because FALN is a Marxist-Leninist organization, it's not at all in doubt. So far you have been the only one to have a problem with the wording, so why don't we consult with the rest of the editors on the matter. Neosiber (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick google search to be sure we are in the same page. Oscar is notable today because he has served more than 30 years in prison. Only his Wikipedia page starts with the rather obscure fact that the FALN had a "Marxist-Lenist" ideals. The fact is that Oscar's media coverage is about his imprisonment not about his Marxist's credentials. The fact that this page has gather such much attention from outside editors from the topic is a strong evidence that Oscar is notable for more than just a membership in a defunct organization. --Jmundo (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Except lots of people have spent more than 30 years in prison, they all don't have pages. The only reason he has a page is because of his connection to FALN. I came to this page because an article that I read somewhere mentioned his name and FALN. It belongs in the lede, Mercy continually removes it, even while the matter is being discussed on the talk page. Neosiber (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What source do you have for your only-reason claim? Mercy11 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's called logic. He is only famous because of his connection to FALN and his conviction, none of the rest would have happened without him being connected to FALN and him being in prison. You want to use the effect of that(support by famous people) as the reason for his fame, when in reality his fame comes from his crimes and that he is connected to a terrorist group like FALN. Neosiber (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• The "logic" described is what Wikipedia calls editors doing original research. Wikipedia uses reliable sources that state the reason for someone notability ("fame" (sic)), not merely what appears "logically" to editors on the surface. Many sources state that OLR has served a overly long sentence. The article sources 1/2 dozen of them, but more are available for your perusal upon request. If the overlly long sentence wasn't indicative of notability as well, why would it be repeated throughout the literature? Participation in the FALN plus an unduly long sentence as a political prisoner are both noted in the literature. Clearly he is not "only famous" (sic, "notable")for a single connection to the FALN as you state and, as such, both facts are deserving of inclusion in the article, wouldn't you think?

It is also interesting to read "I came to this page because an article that I read somewhere mentioned his name and FALN", yet the Wikipedia record actually seems to state you came to this page because, acting against policy, you were in fact canvassed by your Wikibuddy Rococo on April 7, 2014, and after a long 4-month hiatus from Wikipedia since December 11 2013. Mercy11 (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Now you are mistaken. Rococo isn't my buddy, I don't even know him. I've been editing off and on for over 6 years. I only edit when I am looking something up and I find an error in the article. That happened about a year ago. I got irritated by the fact that the article wasn't being allowed to improve and stopped editing on it. More recently Rococo came and asked for my input on the matter, so I became involved again, beyond that I have zero connection to Rococo. If you like WPs so much you should read the one about attacking other editors.

Now to the other matter, yes you can use logic, because logic is one of a humans innate abilities. I am not using that logic as a source though. Again, his sentence and everything else is connected to the fact that he committed a crime and is a member of FALN, your own idea is that he was put in prison longer because he was a member of FALN, which would still mean that the reason for his fame is because of it. You want to use the effect of his fame as the reason for his fame. Neosiber (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Claims, claims, claims...curiously you never cite any Wikipedia WP:PG or as little as a single diff, as well as nor even a single citation to support your claims. Just so typical of POV pushers that come to Wikipedia to publish their own view, broadcast their own message, achieve their own goals. I suggest you do your own reading on attacking other editors as you clearly do not seem to know what it means; and if you still have a WP:Civility concern, then simply follow the instructions there, right? Mercy11 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that you bring up publish their own view, broadcast their own message, achieve their own goals. Since that is what you do, most of your edits have to do with Puerto Rico and are many push a particular view about it. And again, you attack me and abuse WP. You use Wikipedia to push your own agenda. You seem unable to accept the fact that FALN was a terrorist organization, even though there are a multitude of sources all agreeing that they were. Neosiber (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• The problem with your argument is that just as there are a multitude of sources all agreeing that they are terrorists there are also a multitude of sources all agreeing that they were freedom fighters (Freedom Fighters Examples: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc). The reason for this apparent contradiction is that they are both reporting opinions and not facts. To be listed as a terrorist you need a source from an official authority vested with such powers, like the U.S. Government, the U.S. Judiciary, the United Nations, etc. Here are some links used for this purpose:

1. US STATE DEPT TERRORIST LIST
2. U.S. STATE DEPT TERRORIST LIST
3. THE U.S. TREASURY TERRORIST LIST
4. FBI TERRORIST LIST
5. HOMELAND SECURITY TERRORIST LIST

Also, news reports are also admissible if the news is reporting about a Government labeling an organization as terrorist, and not just reporting about some disguntled group calling them terrorists:

1. BBC NEWS
2. ALJAZEERA NEWS

Valid sources, not just news companies who cry out "terrorist" in hopes of selling more newspapers, or Congresspeople who cry out "terrorist" bowing to pressure from their popular constituency and as their own self-service tactic to get reelected, are what is needed. Do you have them? When you say "well sourced material" are you talking about Government terrorist lists? If so, you can provide them for other editors to read.

Second, if you feel I attacked you, you should report it HERE and let them decide. This is the 3rd time in this threat that you make the same claim, but do nothing. I am not sure how else to help you, really.

Mercy11 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why the FALN should not be in the lead of the article, with a brief explanation of what the organization was. When I search Oscar Lopez Rivera Tribune in Google, the top search result is a Chicago Tribune page with 10 different articles by 3 different authors on Faln. The titles read:

• Faln Leader Among 4 Whose Convictions Are Upheld By Court 12/25/1989
• 4 In Faln Escape Plot Sentenced 02/27/1988
• Judge Relents On Sentencing In Faln Case 02/11/1988
• Small Courtroom For Sentencing Irks Faln Defense Lawyers 01/8/1988
• 4 Guilty In Faln Prison Plot 01/1/1988
• Faln Defendants Were Willing To Engage In Terrorism 12/25/1987
• Witness Admits Fear Made Him Tell On Faln 11/05/1987
• Court Hears Prison Escape Plot 11/4/1987 (But 1st sentence states: planned by FALN leader Oscar Lopez-Rivera)
• Prosecutor Tells Faln Escape Plot 10/23/1987
• 6 Indicted In Faln Escape Plot 08/21/1986

Thus in the Chicago Tribune 90% of the articles on this first page obtained by using OLR in search, included FALN in title, 100% had it in title or first sentence.

A similar search using Oscar Lopez Rivera New York Times, identifies an 02/10/2011 article whose first mention of OLR cites: OLR...is the last remaining member of the radical group known as the FALN. Searching within NYT for OLR identifies a 08/09/1999 whose first reference to OLR is Two other jailed members of the radical group, known as FALN. I think all these observations are substantial support for inclusion of FALN and what it is, in the introduction paragraph.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Also a warning to Neosiber, and others, Mercy11 and Sarason are not interested in discussing content, this was evident from their unwillingness to enter mediation. They are most happy in tying up the discussion in WP garbage, and try to lure you into name-calling. Do not fall into their trap. Keep the arguments on the facts and sources. That is their weak point.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• What was evident from Mercy11, Sarason and Jmundo's unwillingness to enter mediation was, as the Mediator said HERE, that "there [were] conduct issues". Didn't you read it? Mercy11, Sarason and Jmundo have been warning you that your conduct is was not acceptable so that should not have come as a surprise. Mercy11 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, you fail to discuss content but seek to clothe yourself in kerfuffle and conduct accusations, above and below. Mediation failed in part because you, Sarason, and JMundo failed to join. How can you mediate between two sides, when one side fails to join? You cannot use that to justify anything that you back for content in the article.

Address the content.

• I made substantial observations above that support for inclusion of FALN and what it is, in the introduction paragraph. You fail to counter this observation. Repeatedly when OLR is cited, he is cited as a member of FALN. The Notability of OLR is due to a number of convictions due to being a member of FALN. Numerous objective reliable sources describe FALN as a terrorist organization. These observations merit a place in the introduction.Rococo1700 (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources describing him as a political prisoner aren't reliable, WPs aren't hard and fast rules. You seem to think they are Mercy.

"Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."

You refuse to use reason and continue to push your own agenda. Neosiber (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right; at times we must WP:IAR. But IAR is a poor selection when there is objection to edits from several editors due to proclivity to POV. Also, some policies can get an editor booted out of Wikipedia. And that's pretty hard and fast to me. Mercy11 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't use IAR. I didn't bring it up. I quoted that from WP:PG. Again, you are pushing your own agenda and abusing WPs. Neosiber (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say you did; I said at times we must WP:IAR. Mercy11 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good, then we should be rational and go with the fact that without FALN and his conviction for crimes connected to it, he would not merit a page on Wikipedia. We have sources showing that it was the reason he became notable in the first place. Which means it should be in the first sentence. Neosiber (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)