Talk:Oscar López Rivera/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sarason, the mediation was canceled because you failed to join, you can not use it to justify anything you say

Again, a mediated solution was offered and all of you rejected entering in mediation. That means the mediation committee cannot work. That is why it was declined. If you continue to make reversions on a non-consensual basis, and there is no dispute mediation possible because you reject mediation, then please by all means, lets argue this with Wikipedia. There is plenty of examples above of multiple authors finding you and Mercy11 acting in inappropriate ownership fashion. This article has to change to reflect Wikipedia policy.

The changes you made increased the level of bias and agenda driven nature of the article. That is not appropriate for Wikipedia. You left the introduction with the what a few congress-persons want, but ignored that 90% of all congress-persons opposed the clemency to OLR. That is just a start. The article is riddled with these biases. The twitter campaign on Wikipedia? Really?

Again my goal here is to make a balanced presentation of the history of OLR. None of my proposals have lacked documented sourcing. I am confident of my sources, and you have biased sources. Rococo1700 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been threatened by Mercy11 with a topic ban. Why? because I take information a report from the US congress examining why OLR should not be granted clemency? My additional point is that this information is supported by multiple sources. Again, Mercy11, if you wanted to argue this, why didn't you join mediation. Finally, you seem to think my persistence is wrong, no! My persistence here is based on the clear lack of neutrality and bias in this article. I am more that willing to include the opinion of some that he is innocent or political prisoner. But I have been arguing here against your persistent insertion into the article those items as facts, not opinion. That continues to be wrong.

Also your statement that his nationality was Puerto Rican was one example of how you entered bias into the article, and why such a point was deleted from the article. Now are you saying that I should have a topic ban, when the evident bias is yours.

Do you want to argue the violent crime conviction. This is a fact, the congressional record states this, the judicial parole board states this, the monograph by Robert Belli makes this point. I do not back down from that point of fact.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, the mediation was rejected for this reason: "This is not a dispute that is appropriate to mediation." Sarason (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

1. For the record, the mediated solution was declined because the mediator determined HERE that it was "not a dispute that is appropriate to mediation. If there are conduct issues, they should be taken to WP:AN or to arbitration." I am not sure where you are getting it was declined "[because] all of you rejected entering in mediation." Seems to me what the Mediator is saying is that the request for mediation involved an editor conduct matter, not a content dispute, and thus Mediation was not the proper forum. For the record, Rococo, everyone in your opposing party refused to participate citing your conduct as a reason. Perhaps you missed that. Their reasons are available HERE (Jmundo), HERE (Sarason) and HERE (Mercy11) for your review. Have you read them? They state that we were growing exhasperated with (1) your failure to adhere to consensus and (2) to the instructions of the DRN volunteer.
2. As for your accussation of article ownership, the proper forum for that is HERE. Please take it there and let them determine.
3. Content issues:
   1. Your claim that "90% of all congress-persons opposed the clemency to OLR" has been opposed as WP:OR. I suggest you put those numbers but in their actual raw form in the body of the article where they will be less conflictive than the lede. Please become familiar with WP:LEDE; it states the lede section is to be a summary of the article. If you wish to put that in the lede you can put it at Bill Clinton pardon controversy or create your own new article about Congress' repudiation of Clinton's FALN pardons. There is not enought WP:WEIGHT in this article for that in the lede section here.
   2. Likewise, you claim "I am confident of my sources, and you have biased sources." Perhaps you are not entirely familiar with WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not require sources to be unbiased (no source is); it requires articles to be neutral. Editors cannot go on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT frenzy over RS sources that make statement contrary to the editor's personal political beliefs. If you feel an article is biased because its sources provide only one side of the story, you are welcome to add the missing side to neutralize the article, but you are not allowed to remove text sourced from RS sources from the existing side as you did HERE, HERE, and HERE.
   3. "All previous Sarason changes were not made with consensus." Not every single edit gets consensus attention as you are demanding HERE. In any event, you also appear confused in your attribution HERE: those were not all Sarason's edits but about an even half of them were mine. My edits were all fully sourced, as such your removal of content is considered WP:disruptive editing. Sarason's largest single edit HERE was simply an update for information just released as a result of yesterday's Puerto Rican Day Parade in NYC and including organizing the material by years so as to make it clearer and easier for teh reader to follow. Wikipedia welcomes updates and the wikifying of articles.
4. You make an accussation of threats against you. If you feel the policy has been violated, take it HERE for guidance on how to proceed.
5. The nationality issue was settled over 6 weeks ago HERE and you agreed to the settlement HERE. Why are you bringing that up again? Unless there is an overridding reason I would urge you to concentrate on current issues. Ditto for your references about your filed Mediation.
6. As for ownership violation, see instructions HERE, you can take it to WP:ANI and file a complaint there. Editing warring without dialogue can get you blocked from Wikipedia. (Note: Filing flash complaints in the Talk Page without good-faith intention of antering into a civil dialogue, as you have been doing for several weeks, is not considered dialogue).
7. Policy violations. Rococo, you are consistently violating Talk Page policies as per WP:TALKNEW and are hereby requested to stop being openly confrontational in your arguments and to disccuss matters in a civil fashion. In violation of policy, you are showing a consistent practice to
   1. Being critical in Talk Page headings (HERE),
   2. Addressing other users in Talk Page heading (HERE and HERE and HERE), and
   3. Using Talk Page headings to attack other users (HERE).
8. Your "violent crime conviction" claim HERE has been exhaustevly examined by numerous editors in this article and twice by WP:DRN volunteers HERE and HERE. The overall consensus of the other editors HERE is that you engaged in WP:OR, and the opinion from the DRN volunteers was that you violated WP:PRIMARY and, as for your second DRN on the same matter, it resulted in not being taken up by any volunteer at all. However, you persist on your "violent criminal" POV as evident HERE ("I do not back down from that"). Just so you know, editors have been blocked in the past for less pointedness than that and for their WP:Disruptive editing.

Mercy11 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

1. For the record, you have no idea why the mediation was rejected. In my opinion, why mediate when only one side joins the mediation. Your side failed to join. I would prefer not to get into conduct issue or article ownership arguments, that is what you want because you can't argue facts, as the mediation would have done.

1. Content issues:
   1. You say: Your claim that "90% of all congress-persons opposed the clemency to OLR" has been opposed as WP:OR.

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. The vote numbers for the 1999 congressional resolutions speak for themselves. You may throw out all the WP banners you want, but this fact is indisputable. You are clearly wrong. I think if you include the opinion of Pierluisi in the lead, one congressperson, then it is important to keep note that the majority of congresspersons, including a commissioner resident from Puerto Rico before Pierluisi opposed the clemency without restrictions.

1. 1. You state: Likewise, you claim "I am confident of my sources, and you have biased sources.

Again you try to banner your way with nonsense. You constantly delete facts because you think the sources are not valid, including the information that the United States congress overwhelmingly voted to oppose the clemency, and I cite the congressional record. You delete any information, despite multiple sources, that has to do OLR's conviction for armed robbery.

1. 1. You say: "All previous Sarason changes were not made with consensus."

• Again argue the facts. I have no idea what your point is.

1. You say: You make an accussation of threats against you. If you feel the policy has been violated, take it HERE for guidance on how to proceed.

• Yes siree, I did say Sarason made a threat. Again, I do not want to argue you junk. I want to argue the facts of the article. For example, the US congress voted overwhelmingly to oppose the clemency. That is something I sourced, edited, and added to article, and you repeatedly deleted.

1. The nationality issue was settled over 6 weeks ago.Why are you bringing that up again?

• I used that as an example of how difficult it is to edit this article. It was an obvious non-neutral edit, and took me numerous efforts to get it removed. Why was it a biased entry, because it backed up OLR's and other FALN member's opinions that the US courts did not have jurisdiction over him because he and they were prisoners of war. That notion failed on so many levels. It was removed but not because of you.

1. You claim Policy violations.

• Aw shucks, I want to argue the points in this article, all this WP nonsense of yours is nonsense, because you can not face the facts that oppose your biased opinion.

1. You claim the "violent crime conviction" claim has been examined by numerous editors in this article, and thus cannot be argued.

• Nonsense. Again, you can wave all the DRN and banners you want. My claims are simple: numerous, trusted sources support the conclusion that OLR was convicted of violent crimes. The Roberta Belli source, the House Committee report, the parole hearing summary, the testimony of Dectective Hahn, the Unrepentant Terrorist article. Also as stated by others, numerous sources cite the FALN as a terrorist organization, are we now to say that terrorism is non-violent. OLR was convicted in a conspiracy perpetrated by an organization that committed over 100 bombings and 6 deaths. The wife of the person that you claim he invoked to decline clemency was convicted of bombings that resulted in the death of an innocent civilian in New York. All three were linked to the same bomb factory in New York (see Belli article). He declined clemency that would have required him to renounce the use of violence. He was convicted of a conspiracy to escape that included the procurement of dynamite and weapons, and had plans for violence. That led to the the ultimate arrest of a couple that had been one of the most wanted criminals by the FBI.

Hey I try to keep it simple. OLR was convicted of armed robbery by a federal court, and that is a fact verified by multiple sources. The federal department of justice considers armed robbery a violent crime. Therefore, OLR was convicted of a violent crime.

I can also find you in Hahn's testimony, in the congressional report on the clemency, multiple references to violent acts by the FALN. Active participation in the violent acts of a criminal organization means that you are a violent criminal. He was linked to bomb factories and bomb making. you continue to say that OLR is not a terrorist, or that the FALN is not considered a terrorist organization, even though the chicago tribune and new york times repeatedly refer to the FALN as a terrorist organization, is part of your bias. The present paragraphy begins to incorporate these concepts into the biography. I am more than willing to allow you to have others have the opinion that he is no longer violent, or that they think his violence was justified, or even that they think he was non-violent. I think we need to give more respect to the opinion of multiple courts of law including jury trials, the congress of united states, and law enforcement that OLR participated in violent crimes.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Do we have to repeat ourselves ad nauseum? The Mediation was rejected because of your conduct not because of any lack of participation as you are alleging; participation was secondary, and depended on your conduct. I am not sure when, or if, you are ever going to understand that. So get over it man - your heralded mediation is now history. Suggestion: drop your confrontational discussion forums style and make an attempt to be more collegial next time and perhaps you will get the participation you long for.

You claim to have "numerous, trusted sources [that] support the conclusion that OLR was convicted of violent crimes". Ha! Even if that was true, it cannot be included in the encyclopedia because editors are not allowed to "conclude"; that's forbidden by WP:SYN because it considered WP:OR. Your "numerous, trusted sources" have to state that he committed violent crimes and so far none of them do. Coincidentally, I too have numerous trusted sources that state he was never convicted of any violent crime including HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

We can report he was a criminal because we have documentation that he was found guilty of crimes. We cannot report he committed violent crimes, however, because we don't have documentation that he was found guilty of violent crimes. BTW, your armed robbery escapeway hasn't been challenged but only in so far as it is documented; but the citation you provided is too skimpy, failing to report obvious things like who or what he robbed. For example, THIS article here clarifies "conspiracy to armed robbery" and not just "armed robbery" as you have been claiming. A significant difference since conspiracy to armed robbery is not a violent crime given that no such planning, in itself, injured no one and damaged no property. I suggest you come up with stronger sources that provide details if you want to kept that armed robbery claim in this BLP - especially because it contradicts the other CNN, NYT, ect, sources which specifically report he committed no violent crime.

Wikipedia is not about what you think and about your trying to publish your WP:OR. If you want to give "more respect to the opinion of multiple courts of law" go ahead and do it. It's a free country and you can so that, but don't try to impose it on others by publishing here as published fact to push you "violent crime" agenda. Mercy11 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is part of USA

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, U.S.A. OLR was born in Puerto Rico, U.S.A.

When OLR mails a letter to Puerto Rico. He uses the U.S.A. Postal service to deliver the letter from his jail cell to the doorstep of Puerto Rico. Case closed.

My understanding is that JBabylon has been blocked for this. Then I am willing to start a mediation that decides this. In the case of OLR, the issue is important. He claimed he was a prisoner of war, despite the fact that he was born and had lived as an American Citizen by virtue of his birth. I don't think Mercy11 gets to declare Puerto Rico independent of the USA, not part of the USA by using biographical boxes. Again, he seems to think his opinions are the truth. My sense is that the PR like other states or territories, should be included as part of its greater whole. Rococo1700 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be a question, Puerto Rico is part of the US. That is a simple fact. Neosiber (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Some of these disagreements are becoming petty and ridiculous. It's not even worth arguing about. But since the silly season is upon us, please note that the infobox geographical info is intended as...um...geographical information. The location of OLR's birth is San Sebastian, Puerto Rico. This is geographical information. Everyone knows that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the U.S. We all get it. But there is no need to inject political content, and political disagreement, into every corner of this page. I am reverting the infobox geographical information to its original geographical function. Rococo1700, your "understanding that JBabylon was blocked for this," and then proceeding to inject the same exact edit that JBabylon was blocked for, shows your continuing disregard for any administrative action, or for any opinion other than your own. Have a great 4th of July everyone - please get a life and stop being ridiculous. Sarason (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: JBabyon91 was blocked for "edit warring, sockpuppetry, general attitude problem", in other words, the manner in which he edited, not the edit content. Having said that, I would like to say that I have no preference one way or the other on how the geographic information is presented. Hammersbach (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sarason the silliness came when Mercy11 deleted USA from many of the boxes of persons of Puerto Rico. Again, I challenge your facts. The Biographical box of Barack Obama says Hawai, USA. Do I have my geography wrong. Furthermore, the reason this is not silly in this specific case, is that when OLR and other FALN members were arrested, they claimed to be prisoners of war. That is, that they were not from USA, but from a foreign country at war with the United States. The problems with that claim were, just boggling to the mind. OLR was born an American Citizen, he traveled to the US as an American citizen, worked in the US as an American citizen, lived for likely all his life in USA as an American citizen, and when he was arrested he gave the officer a driver's licence from Oregon (which although fake) likely said that he was an American citizen. For that reason, even the small hint that you an Mercy11 wish to make that somehow he was born in a faraway land outside of the USA obscures a fact that OLR himself tried, unsuccessfully to obscure. Things can matter in a biography, when the focus of the biography makes them matter. This is why its important here. The fight to integrate reasonable and important facts into this article, against your often irrational opposition, has been exceedingly contentious. It is stunning to hear you say that something is unimportant. But I think we need to keep the emphasis on the facts. Puerto Rico is part of the US, and biographical boxes should say so, in the same way that they say Hawaii, USA.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. PR is a US territory. There is no reason to exclude that fact. To do so would be confusing to readers without the requisite geographical understanding. The notion that it is somehow POV to include is absurd.Pokey5945 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Posición Política"

In the article there is a reliably sourced passage that reads, "...several FALN documents, including a manual for guerrilla warfare detailing deceptive practices and rules of clandestine living titled Posición Política. Is it possible that it is referring to this document?[1] Hammersbach (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be a primary source. It seems okay to link to as a supplement to the secondary source, given that the title is identical, but should not be used on its own per WP:OR.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not it is a primary/secondary/reliable source has been already been discussed here.[2] The only question I am asking is whether or not the document found in López Rivera's apartment and titled Posición Política is the same document that is found on www.latinamericanstudies.org web site on the FALN page and titled Posición Política. I should have linked to that page [3] rather than directly to the document, sorry about that. Hammersbach (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)