Talk:Oscar López Rivera

Richard Pascarella
The statement by Richard Pascarella is relevant since it aptly refers to the clemency offered to López Rivera was an acknowledged leader of the FALN. Pascarella was a victim of FALN violence. It can be argued that the fact that he is "Peurto Rican" (sic) is not relevant to his opinions. I would be agreeable to removing that phrase, but if the opinions of Tito Kayak are considered worthwhile, then I think that Pascarella, a law officer harmed by FALN, should have equal or more weight. The prior article made it sound that there was only a movement for clemency, and made little mention of the crimes attributed to his organization. I think to remove the opinions of Pascarella, diminishes the the strong sentiments that opposed clemency.Rococo1700 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a valid point to say that leaving Tito Kayak's opinion may have slanted the article's presentation. I've removed both Kayak's and Pascarella's views as WP:UNDUE – BLP articles must be extra cautious in reproducing opinions about living people – in particular, even though these were reported by independent sources, the opinions in question are not those of any recognized legal experts. Being a victim of a FALN attack might make someone a good guest on the Oprah Winfrey Show, but it doesn't automatically make someone a subject-matter expert for encyclopedic purposes. And in any case, detailed responses to the organization belong at Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña, not Rivera's bio, per WP:COATRACK, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLPSTYLE, etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not engage in edit wars. The text as it stood attempted to balance the strong opinions on both sides. I have removed the quote from Pascarella, but not the fact that he was part of the effort to stymie the release. You fail to convince me that your effort was sincere, since you only removed one mention of Tony Kayak, but not the others, and not the mentions of Spanish students or TV personalities. Clearly Pascarella has as valid, and as influential an opinion, as all those others. None of the latter has been maimed by the organization of which OLR was a leader. If you continue to change the original article, then we should request an administrative review. You are injecting your biases into argument, selectively editing out the opinions. Such bias has no place in Wikipedia.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't respond to such personal attacks, but I have tagged the article with POV. At minimum, the back-and-forth between supporters and opponents of López Rivera should be removed. See the relevant policy at WP:BALANCE, WP:STRUCTURE, and WP:WEIGHT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to Pascarella, which is sourceable only to a single breaking-news article from 1999 (see WP:NOTNEWS). I don't have a strong opinion on whether to include Tito Kayak's response, but at the very least it comes from a wiki-notable person, unlike Pascarella's response. The concerns about balance and structure of the article (i.e., not presenting a back-and-forth between supporters and opponents) still apply. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the passage a second time. The bombing that injured Pascarella has never been shown to have anything to do with López Rivera. The source does not even mention López Rivera by name. I'll say again, we are writing a bio of López Rivera, not an article on the FALN. Furthermore, the statements by the group's lawyer quoted in the source have been conveniently left out of the article. I still stand by my earlier opinion that this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACKING. The text in question already exists at the FALN article under. Having it here is a simple WP:CONTENTFORK of that article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: lead sentence
Should the phrase "killing five" be included or excluded from the following part of the lead sentence? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Exclude per WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:COATRACK. López Rivera was not charged in connection with any of these deaths. He was indicted and imprisoned for seditious conspiracy and related crimes, not terrorism and not murder. BLP policy specifically cautions against statements that rely on guilt by association, as implied here. Mentioning these deaths in the very first sentence of López Rivera's biography (after "Puerto Rican activist and militant") gives the impression that he is somehow uniquely responsible for them. The objection that the phrase cannot be to López Rivera because of the interpolated bit about FALN is ludicrous. This is a biography of López Rivera; the first sentence exists to explain why he is notable. Details about the bombings belong under  if anywhere (frankly, the part about "120 bomb attacks" likewise seems undue for the lead section, but at the very least "killing five" should go). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC) (edited 02:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC))
 * Note that high-level sources describe López Rivera mostly as a "member" of FALN, not a "leader" of the organization. I've changed that part to according to this source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sanbdeboeuf's statement that OLR was a member and not a leader are false. I recommend reading the Bella article which details the activities of FALN, which the core group seems to have been less than a dozen. And OLR was there in New York and Chicago, as a leader according to the sources. You can't just cherry pick your sources.Rococo1700 (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume that's a reference to Effects and effectiveness of law enforcement intelligence measures to counter homegrown terrorism: A case study on the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN) by Roberta Belli, which indeed refers to López Rivera as a leader of FALN. It's also published by a law-enforcement arm of the U.S. federal government. Given that López Rivera was prosecuted by the U.S. federal government for a suspected conspiracy against that government, I think we have to view this source with some caution. High-level academic sources such as Finley (2017) and Méndez-Méndez & Fernandez (2015) detail the criminal case against López Rivera while staying mostly vague about his exact role in the organization. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Finley's book has some erroneous statements that appear biased. She states OLR "was accused of plotting to challenge US involvement in Puerto Rico." That is flatly false, please see the references in article to the conviction. She says that "one witness testified that he was part of the FALN". While there was one turncoat witness, he was also the co-owner of an appartment discovered with bomb paraphenalia, along with the husband of Haydee Beltran who was convicted of the bombing death by the FALN of a person. There was more evidence that he was part of the FALN conspiracy to cause harm to people and places. This cannot be used as a more reliable source than Belli. Second, Sangdeboeuf is plain wrong in stating that Mendez-Mendez etal was silent on OLR's and FALN's role. It identifies him as the founder of FALN, and after Carlos Torres was arrested, the person who was to "take control of the organization".Rococo1700 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * – Please provide a reliable, published source for this statement. – incorrect. The source refers to Carlos Torres as "the known founder and leader" of FALN. Nearly every source refers to the seditious conspiracy charge against López Rivera; it seems obvious that this is what Finley means by "plotting to challenge U.S. involvement in Puerto Rico". The fact that sources do not exactly match your preferred version of events does not make them unreliable. We go by published sources with a reputation for accuracy, not editors' personal feelings or beliefs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Méndez-Méndez and Fernandez state that Torres's arrest "apparently forced López Rivera to take control of the organization" – note the qualifying term. This is still being vague on López Rivera's exact role; I've edited my earlier comment to reflect this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude per Sangdeboeuf's arguments. If López Rivera has not been charged with these killings, then it is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPCRIME. I further agree with Sangdeboeuf that academic sources should be considered to have much more weight and reliability than sources published by the DHS which is directly involved in the proceedings and thus cannot be considered an independent source. signed,Rosguill talk 18:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaken in saying "If OLR has not been charged with these killings". The trial of most of the FALN members found them guilty of a conspiracy, with bombings and resultant deaths, and did not aim to link every member to a specific act. Haydee Beltran was convicted of the bombing death at the Mobil tower, because her fingerprint was found at the scene. For the other bombings it was not possible to get that level of discrimination of whose acts did what; but it was possible to link them to the conspiracy. Finally, this article is littered with nonacademic sources as to why he was a political prisoner. Rococo1700 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then propose to eliminate the weakest such sources. "What about this other stuff" is a distraction from the topic at hand. Nevertheless, when Desmond Tutu refers to the charges against López Rivera as essentially political, then it seems like a relevant perspective to include. As for whether the FALN members were not all charged in connection with any bombing deaths, that does not entitle us to decide for ourselves that López Rivera or any other person is in fact responsible. See No original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude - I agree with the editors above. The sentence is ambiguous as worded. At first glance I interpreted it as saying that Rivera specifically killed five people (out of the organisation's victim count). Something like "bomb attacks... which/that killed five people", would be unambiguous, but is WP:UNDUE for the article's first sentence.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  23:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC) (arrived via WP:RFC/A)
 * Exclude per Sangdeboeuf's arguments. In fact, the entire long-winded explanation on the lead sentence that "[the FALN was] a clandestine paramilitary organization devoted to Puerto Rican independence that carried out more than 120 bomb attacks on United States targets between 1974 and 1983, killing five", should be removed because the article is about this individual and not about the FALN organization. If a reader wants to learn more about the FALN, then that's what the wikilinks are there for. Mercy11 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Include. The language is consistent with the sourcing, and Wikipedia is not censored to remove well-established facts. He was a leader of a movement that claimed many lives. It is completely acceptable to point out that the movement of which he was indisputably a leader was not a sewing circle but committed homicides. Coretheapple (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * there is no censorship involved here. Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña clearly says that the group carried out attacks that killed people, even listing the incidents. The question is whether the information also belongs in the lead section of López Rivera's bio or is undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of what you mention, and my opinion is that WEIGHT requires that the lethal character of the organization he headed be mentioned in the lead, so as to not whitewash this article by omission. Coretheapple (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He didn't head the FALN. The FALN was founded and headed by Carlos Torres and later headed by Filiberto Ojeda Ríos.Mercy11 (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude - It's just bad English. It's fine to mention somewhere that Rivera's actions resulted in the deaths of 5 people, but not like that. NickCT (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This illustrates, perhaps by accident, the main problem with the sentence, which gives the impression that López Rivera was directly responsible for the deaths. According to high-level sources, "there was no direct link of López Rivera to any of the FALN killings"; he was "accused of being involved in some two dozen bombings in the Chicago area. No one was injured in these attacks." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Partly by accident. I mean, a lot of "bad" English is "bad" because it's not clear and concise. The "killing five" wording is not clear and concise. It is bad English. NickCT (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Include - I have suggested and even once changed the sentence to read :a clandestine paramilitary organization devoted to Puerto Rican independence that between 1974 and 1983 in the United States carried out more than 120 bomb attacks, which caused five deaths.[1][2][3][4][5] That would make the sentence clearer, but not dismiss the seriousness of the acts of OLR. Also one can not separate OLR from FALN and their bombing campaign, that was the reason why he was convicted. Too many focus on that OLR was not matched one on one with the deaths, but he was one of the leaders of the campaign that lead to the deaths. And we are talking of an organization with less than a dozen or so members at its largest. As is cited below "This bomb factory was linked to the owner of the apartment, Carlos Torres, López Rivera, and their respective wives, Marie Haydée Beltrán Torres and Ida Luz Rodríguez." Betran Torres was convicted of setting the bomb that killed Charles Steinberg. The aim of Sangdeboueuf and other editors in the past is to claim that OLR is a political prisoner, imprisoned for his beliefs. No, the fact is that he was imprisoned for his actions, a leading and active role in a bombing campaign that lead to five deaths. This is why he is infamous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rococo1700 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a published, reliable source that explicitly states that López Rivera's actions led to any deaths. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never, and the article does not state, nor was OLR convicted of placing that bomb in this place, and killing that person. For example, no one has ever been convicted of the FALN bombing of Fraunces Tavern. What OLR was convicted, what the evidence showed, was that OLR was an active part of a conspiracy that made and set bombs, including the one set off by Beltran Torres, the wife of the man who co-owned or co-rented with OLR the bomb factory in New York. I have left the comments in the article where OLR claims he has nothing to do with FALN bombings, but his story is that of a conviction for the conspiracy that included FALN bombings. That is well cited in the article.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If no one was ever convicted of the FALN bombing of Fraunces Tavern and of killing people there, Wikipedia is not a tribunal to convict anyone, especially living people, like OLR. You appear to be trying to say that what the evidence presented in the Tavern case showed that OLR was (a) involved in the making of the bomb/s used at the Tavern, (b) involved in setting off the bomb/s used at the Tavern, (c) conspired with someone to set off the bomb/s at the Tavern. Even if all of those are true it doesn't matter because he wasn't found guilty of any of them. Mercy11 (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Include - This AP article is about him, but also includes the number injured and killed by his activities. You cannot separate the leader from the organization's "achievements". Do mention that he was not proven to be personally held responsible. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * is not what this source says. Please provide an actual source for this statement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The comment from Peter K Burian illustrates the problem inherent in keeping the lead section sentence in question. OLR wasn't found guilty of murder; he was found guilty of conspiracy (seditious conspiracy, not conspiracy to commit murder). As such, Wikipedia cannot say that any X number of people were killed by  his  (not the FALN's) activities. Stating so is tantamount to Wikipedia operating as a criminal tribunal. Had anyone been killed by  his  activities, he would had been tried for that and found guilty of conspiracy to murder but he wasn't. That's how the law operates in the United States: innocent till proven guilty. Even if family members and loved ones hold him responsible, that isn't enough to keep the misleading statement in question in the lead because the Law of the Land decides who is guilty and who isn't, not family members and loved one. (Even prosecutors unhappy with the final verdict or unhappy that he is walking free and not in prison don't decide that either; the US system of justice and the Constitution decide that, and they both --Federal Court and President Obama-- decided already). Mercy11 (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd request the closing admin to discount any previous or subsequent !votes based on whether it's possible to "separate" López Rivera from the FALN organization, as this is based solely on personal opinion rather than any relevant policies or guidelines – and in fact it contradicts BLP requirements to be cautious about "guilt by association". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the event of a "no consensus" result, I'd also ask the closing admin to bear in mind the relevant ArbCom statement of principles, which says that In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned ... such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Include although the wording can be altered to be more clear he wasn't convicted of the killings itself (which is now stated later in the lead). It's obvious that the bombings are core to his notability. He wouldn't have received a 55-year sentence if that wasn't the case. He wasn't just some neighbourhood dad who happened to transport firearms interstate. But one sentence it's not that big of a deal. I'm more bothered by Sangdeboeuf's odd comment that we shouldn't trust law-enforcement sources because Rivera was opposed by the law-enforcement. Imagine someone saying that we shouldn't use gov't sources in Timothy McVeigh because he was opposed by the government. It's nothing new that the articles about FALN, Weather Underground and Black Panther cop killers, jail rioters, bombers and bank robbers are turned into hagiographies about "political prisoners" in Wikipedia. It's time it's called out what it is, far-left POV pushing. I commend you, . --Pudeo (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, Oscar Lopez Rivera received a 55 year sentence because in the US, as in every other country, crimes against the State (i.e., seditious conspiracy) carry more severe sentences than crimes against individuals. That's why Timothy McVeigh was executed within 6 years of his crime against the State, even ahead of others who had been (and still are) on Death Row for decades appealing their convictions. Mercy11 (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * it's hard to see how a series of fatalities that López Rivera was neither charged nor convicted for would be the core of his notability (note that "notable" on Wikipedia is not the same as "(in)famous"). Which sources substantiate that position in any way? The high-level ones I've seen don't seem to support such a view; Finley, for example, starts off by stating that López Rivera was imprisoned "as a threat to the U.S. government" and that he was considered by many to be "the world's longest-held political prisoner" (2017, p. 313). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Include but break into 2 or more sentences It is patently absurd to suggest we can discuss the leader of a terrorist organization without discussing what that organization did. But I would put that part somewhere after the lead sentence which should simply state he was the leader of the FALN. What the FALN was and what they did however, is absolutely pertinent and belongs in the lead paragraph. If deemed necessary, a disclaimer can be inserted to the effect that he was never convicted of direct involvement in crimes of violence. The reader thus provided with the relevant facts can draw what conclusions they will. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't patently absurd. That's why heavily-contributed biographies like Donald Trump's mention "Republican" and "Trump Organization" only once in the lead  and  without discussing in the lead what the Party or the Organization did. The lead need information about the person, not about what the organization he/she was involved did. In fact, even the body of the article doesn't need information about the organization (other than to state it is said to have killed 5 people, of course) except where it relates to what the subject of the article did within the organization. Mercy11 (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We've got one high-level source saying López Rivera was a "suspected leader" of the FALN (Lambert 2011, p. 194) and another saying he was "apparently forced ... to take control of the organization" in 1980, five years after the Fraunces Tavern bombing, and that the FALN was in a "weakened" state at that time (Méndez-Méndez & Fernandez 2015, p. 270). So what is your source for stating definitively that he was "the leader of a terrorist organization"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Trial section
Sangdeboef please refrain from deleting sourced material. You deleted a line from the trial section, that was well-sourced, claiming you were " Removing close paraphrase of source per WP:COPYVIO)". In effect your were cloaking you biased point of view with that claim.

The sentence originally stated: " López Rivera admitted committing every act with which he was charged, but declared himself a political prisoner and refused to take part in most of the trial proceedings.".

You changed it to "López Rivera maintained that he was a prisoner of war[6] and refused to participate in most of the trial.[24]"

You claimed that the copyright violation was due to the similarity to the original sentence "Lopez-Rivera, arrested in late May near the Glenview Naval Air Station, admitted committing every act for which he was charged, but declared himself a political prisoner and refused to take part in most of his trial." Ultimately, the sentence in Wikipedia paraphrases the original paragraph, adhering closely to what was said. You elected to delete what you did not like. That is a violation of bias in Wikipedia. I am reverting this to the original sentence, with a minor modification that invalidates any claim, if there ever was, of copyright violation. The end result of your editing by omitting the fact that he "admitted every act" is a dreadful expression of bias. Please refrain from making these edits without bringing them to discussion.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:COPYVIO states, inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. The source is a single, brief news article. The text is out of proportion to coverage in better, non-breaking-news sources. I've condensed it accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the original article, some other biased changes that you made. For example, you state "no evidence" links him t bombings. But he was convicted of participating in a bomb-making conspiracy. So there was evidence he was linked to bomb-making for the FALN. He was not convicted of a specific bombing, but that does not equate to "no evidence links him to bombings". These are biased assertions. If you want you can say: so and so thinks there was no evidence, but then you should balance it by a sentence that establishes that he was convicted as part of a bomb-making conspiracy with pounds of evidence that was seized.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Published sources state that he was not linked to specific bombings: "[López Rivera] and the others were never tied to specific bombings, which caused few injuries." "No evidence was ever found tying López Rivera to any of the bombings". "[T]here was no direct link of López Rivera to any of the FALN killings". We go by published, reliable sources, not Wiki editors' personal interpretations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Published sources and conviction states that he was part of a conspiracy that included being a member of an organization that set off bombs. Your sources are biased. Please lood that the Robert Belli article. Again to say that there was no direct link of OLR to any one of the FALN killings, does not mean that no evidence was ever found tying OLR to the bombings. He was an active part of a conspiracy to make bombs. He was linked to an apartment full of bombs and bomb-making material. This is evidence that he was linked to bombs. Also any article that states that OLR is a political prisoner is biased. The Diaz article is titled using that premise. SO published, reliable sources not biased opinions and your personal bias. Rococo1700 (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please learn the difference between "bomb-making" and "bombing". The first involves constructing a bomb. The second involves blowing one up. They are not the same. If you actually read Identifying reliable sources you would also see that it is not for any of us to decide what the "evidence" means in any criminal case. If you have a problem with any sources then take it to WP:RS/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Calling López Rivera a "terrorist" is also a biased POV, but you seem to have no problem citing the UPI article that calls him one. Once again, just because sources disagree with your personal view does not make them unreliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Timeline
2010
 * In 2010, the Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, officially requested López Rivera's release.

2011
 * Joseph F. Connor, whose father died in the 1975 bombing at Fraunces Tavern, testified at a parole hearing for López Rivera. He opposed parole because he holds López Rivera partly responsible for his father's death. Lopez' attorney said "It was very impactful, moving testimony from people who had terrible losses, but it had nothing to do with Mr. Lopez."

2012
 * On June 7, Puerto Rican activist Tito Kayak started a two-leg lone high seas voyage from Ciudad Bolivar, Venezuela, to San Juan, Puerto Rico, and then from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Washington, D.C., to protest the U.S. incarceration of Oscar López Rivera. Kayak described him as a political prisoner.

2013
 * In 2013, several high-profile manifestations took place in Puerto Rico on behalf of Oscar López Rivera. These were attended by the highest levels of Puerto Rican government, politicians from all political parties, prominent Puerto Rican artists, singers, actors, Major League baseball players, and hundreds of other people.
 * Several U.S. congressmen, as well as the Governor of Puerto Rico, also supported his release, asking the President of the United States for it.
 * On May 29, 2013, on the 32nd anniversary of López Rivera's continuous incarceration, high-ranking officials, former prison personnel, singers, actors, Major League baseball players, and hundreds of other volunteers participated in mock-up prison cell events throughout Puerto Rico calling for the release of López Rivera from the American prison system. In addition, several U.S. Congressmen supported his release, with a few contacting President Obama asking for his release.
 * Numerous volunteers participated in a 24-hour demonstration where they remained confined to 6 ft x 9 ft mock-up prison cells intended to represent López Rivera's current cell size in Terre Haute, Indiana. The demonstrations took place on May 29, 2013, at the central squares of Puerto Rico's four largest cities, San Juan, Ponce, Mayagüez, and Arecibo. The volunteers included politicians María de Lourdes Santiago, a Puerto Rican senator, musician Tito Auger, and actors Ángela Meyer. Others entering the mock-up cells were pro-Statehood party Ponce mayor María Meléndez, writer Mayra Montero, San Juan pro-Commonwealth party mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, former Puerto Rico governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, and former Major Leagues baseball player Carlos Delgado. On that same day hundreds of activists, including pop star Ricky Martin, asked for his release from prison.  The governor of Puerto Rico, Alejandro García Padilla joined the call for López Rivera's release in a letter to President Barack Obama.  His release is also supported by members of Congress Luis Gutiérrez, José E. Serrano, and Nydia Velázquez.

2014
 * A group of young students and workers in Spain joined the international demand for the release of Oscar López Rivera. From February 28, 2014 until April 1, 2014, the Comite 33 días por la excarcelación de Oscar promoted López Rivera's cause amongst Spaniards. In addition, they collected signatures to ask U.S. President Barack H. Obama to grant him a presidential pardon.


 * In March 2014, the Mexican pop singer Cristian Castro joined the international demand for López Rivera's release.
 * In early June 2014, the Speaker of the New York City Council, Melissa Mark-Viverito, officially supported the release of Oscar López Rivera.
 * On June 6, 2014 in New York City, radio station WBAI 99.5 FM conducted a half-hour news and interview segment on Oscar López Rivera. The radio segment was conducted by Howard Jordan, the host of the show.
 * On June 7, 2014, Miguel Cotto and José Pedraza called for the release of Oscar López Rivera, lending their prestige as champion fighters hailing from Puerto Rico. Miguel Cotto is the middleweight champion of the world and the first Puerto Rican to be the world boxing champion in four different weight classes. The two fighters appeared with "Free Oscar López Rivera" shirts in the ring at Madison Square Garden, and Pedraza previously wore the shirt in a fight in Puerto Rico.
 * On June 8, 2014, the National Puerto Rican Day Parade paid tribute to Oscar López Rivera. On that day, a contingent in support of his release marched in the Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York City. A week earlier, the June March 1 in The Bronx was also dedicated to Oscar López Rivera.

2015
 * On January 4, 2015, in response to US requests to free the Venezuelan leader Leopoldo López, the president Nicolas Maduro had offered Washington to exchange him "man to man" by López Rivera. The White House rejected the proposal of the Venezuelan government the following day.

2016
 * On May 16, 2016, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders tweeted, "Oscar Lopez Rivera has served 34 years in prison for his commitment to Puerto Rico's independence. I say to President Obama: let him out."

2017
 * On January 6, 2017, playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda tweeted, "Feliz Cumpleaños y bendiciones, Oscar López Rivera. Please bring him home, @POTUS, while you still have time."

I've removed this info from the article for now – biographies shouldn't be a laundry list of people who've ever said anything about the subject. Feel free to restore any material that can be worked into a neutrally written prose summary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Neutrality of the article needs to be judged on the basis of the entirety of the article . Is the entire article compliant with WP:NPOV after teh ? Has it been found (i.e., "judged") that the entire article complies with WP:NPOV even with this section removed? If so, then I am all for it.  But, if the article was already slanted in a pro-OLR direction with too many pro-OLR portions and this timeline brings some anti-OLR material that helps neutralize the entire article (or, if the article was already slanted in an anti-OLR direction with too many anti-OLR portions and this timeline has pro-OLR material that helps neutralize the entire article ), then the timeline should be kept because, in this case, WP:IAR would trump WP:NOTEVERYTHING. On the basis of WP:NOTEVERYTHING alone I would side with removing the timeline; but on the basis of WP:NPOV my take is that prior to its removal the article's (and the timeline's) compliance with NPOV needs to be assessed, before deciding whether to remove it or not. Mercy11 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Where?
Early in the article, we read that he was convicted of trying to escape from Leavenworth (Kansas). But Leavenworth is not included in the section on his imprisonment. Kdammers (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaken. It's mentioned with this ref.
 * Regards, --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't see it. I don't understand what you are saying about the reference.  Even if it is in some reference, I think it should be in the text. Kdammers (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If I am not mistaken you have been editing since around 2004. I'd think you have heard about WP:BOLD by now. Eloquent gave you the cite, and it fulfills WP:V and WP:RS, so what is there not to "see" about it? Go ahead and feel free to add Leavenworth to the section on his imprisonment if you want to see it in the article. It's that simple. Mercy11 (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)