Talk:Oscar López Rivera/Archive 2

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

OLR is different. This article reads as a screed and full of biases. For example:
 * López Rivera is said to be "among the longest held political prisoners in ... the history of the world. If that is true, then I can cite reports that say that he is not a political prisoner, but instead a violent criminal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimately the challenge is how to incorporate the information of why OLR was convicted of sedition. I believe the presentencing report for OLR cited in the House Report above is a succint, verifiable account of what he was convicted for. This was not a prisoner of conscience but instead: "prime recruiter for members of the underground terrorist group ...a key trainer in bombing, sabotage and other techniques of guerilla warfare. He has set up a series of safehouses and bomb factories across the country, the searches of which have uncovered literally hundreds of pounds of dynamite and other forms of high explosive, blasting caps, timing devices, huge caches of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, disguises, stolen and altered identity documents, and the proceeds of the armed robberies of locations such as a National Guard Armory, Chicago's Carter-Mondale Re-Election headquarters, radio and communications companies, as well as a variety of stolen vehicles"

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Ultimately, I think sentencing statements by the court are quotations and can be used as sources for what was said. In this case, the other problem is that the source clearly states that OLR was convicted of:
 * 1) Seditious Conspiracy............. 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2384...         20yrs
 * 2) Interference with Interstate Commerce by Threats or Violence...18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951 & 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2.          20
 * 3) Carrying Firearms During the Commission of Seditious Conspiracy and Interference with Interstate Commerce by Violence...   18 U.S.C. Sec.  924(b) & 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2.         10yrs
 * 4) Four counts of Interstate Transportation of a Stolen Vehicle...18 U.S.C. Sec. 2312 & 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2.            5yrs each

''Lets look at the statement in WP:BLPPRIMARY Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records .. to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.''

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

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

What is being deleted by Mercy11 and Jmundo
The House report cites the information on the warrant and convictions of OLR. Again this is not a direct quote; and when one issues a conspiracy conviction, there are others involved and can be multiple acts involved. To merely say that OLR was involved in sedition is wrong. He was convicted of seditious conspiracy. It is not enought to just state seditious conspiracy. Does that mean that they sat around a campfire and sang anti-yanki songs? The details of which are stated below:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what exactly did he do?
Well, according to one editor, OLR was convicted of seditious conspiracy. Here is how that crime is defined in the US Code:
 * 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

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


 * See description of the conspiracy from the House report cited below. I include the paragraphs in my lengthy discussion.
 * Well, ok, but I was really just looking for the “CliffsNotes” version. I just find that the lack of any information concerning his criminal activity, his arrest, his trial, etc., in the article to be a bit peculiar for a couple of reasons:


 * 1) According to the US Code the maximum penalty for seditious conspiracy is 20 years, yet OLR was sentenced to at least 55 years, depending on which source you read. So why all the additional years?


 * 2) Despite all the calls for his release (which receives generous coverage in the article), there is really no one who asserts that he was unjustly convicted.


 * So I go back to my original question, what exactly did he do and why are we not including this information in the article? Hammersbach (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After a very cursory check I was able to find out that the reason for the 55 year sentence is that Lopez Rivera was ordered to serve his time consecutively for the seven counts of which he was convicted. I was also able to find quite a few reliable secondary sources which detail the actions which led to his conviction.  Curious that none of that information has found it's way into the article. Anyway, once this page is unprotected I will attempt to clean up, and add to, the section “Criminal Convictions (sic)” which recent editing has rendered somewhat of a mess.  Cheers!  Hammersbach (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

OLR was convicted of Robbery
Mercy11, the sentence of OLR for seditious conspiracy was twenty years, there were other charges that brought his sentence up to 70 years. You can continue to quote Desmond Tutu as your source for the charges. I can't see how my sources are not better, more reliable than Desmond Tutu: Here we go:

The FALN and Macheteros Clemency: Misleading explanations, a reckless decision, a dangerous message, From the U.S. Government Printing Office, Report by the Committee on Government Reform.
 * 1) House Report 106-488
 * 2) U.S. Parole Commission report on ORL dated February 18, 2011, announce ment by Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Chairman of the Parole Board.
 * 3) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Second Edition edited by Gus Martin, page 194.
 * 4)New York Times article By Nathaniel Sheppard Jr, Special to the New York Times Published: July 25, 1981.

Now it is your turn to get sources more reliable than those. As to my travel excuse, please leave my fiancee out of this. What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. When I traveled I didn't look up above the CarribeanHQ entry in my talk page to see a note about the DR/N. Oops. Does this now mean that if I failed to see that, then OLR is not a violent criminal? Rococo1700 (talk) 03:29, 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)


 * No, the example of your fiancee is not going to be left out of this as it shows perfectly what we are dealing with: someone who cannot be trusted. Why do you think Wikipedia is so hard on sockpuppets? Yeah, because they lie. Deal fair and square and you will start making some progress. You are welcome! Mercy11 (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As the examples above show, Sarason and Mercy11 are not interested in talking about the facts of OLR but instead on furthering their agenda. Oh I am so guilty of making edits on 16th century Perugian painters under my name tag, oh that absolutely detracts from the fact that OLR was convicted as a violent criminal. You are right, I am relentless in seeking this article to show some balance. Guilty again! Oh but you digress. I am going to suggest a consensus second paragraph that includes some of the opinions you have placed, but adds the facts that you seem to avoid:

President Clinton's offer of clemency to former FALN members, including Oscar, was strongly opposed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the US House of Representatives "Congressional Record &mdash; HOUSE" H8019 and Senate "Congressional Record &mdash; SENATE" S18018 and by law enforcement agencies. While President Clinton defended his clemency decision stating that López Rivera was never convicted of specific crimes that resulted in deaths or injuries[6][7][8][9][10][11], others point out that Oscar Lopez was convicted, among other charges, of armed robbery, which is considered by the Department of Justice as a violent crime.. The consider additional evidence that he is violent that the conspiracy for which he was convicted included being "prime recruiter for members of the underground terrorist group, and has been a key trainer in bombing, sabotage and other techniques of guerilla warfare. He has set up a series of safehouses and bomb factories across the country, the searches of which have uncovered literally hundreds of pounds of dynamite and other forms of high explosive, blasting caps, timing devices, huge caches of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, disguises, stolen and altered identity documents, and the proceeds of the armed robberies of locations such as a National Guard Armory, Chicago's Carter-Mondale Re-Election headquarters, radio and communications companies, as well as a variety of stolen vehicles."

There, how about that. It leaves most of the ideas in the prior sentences in the paragraph intact, and moves both ideas: non violent prisoner and violent prisoner to the same category: opinions. Do we have consensus?


 * No. We have one editor (you) persisting in an already discredited attempt to inject primary sources and original research into this Wikipedia. Sarason (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Next we need to tackle with the same degree, the question of political prisoner and other issues.Rococo1700 (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, you seem to be willing to attack the person, and not the facts. Address the paragraph above. If you want I can cite the statement others point out that Oscar Lopez was convicted, among other charges, of armed robbery to New York Times article By Nathaniel Sheppard Jr, Special to the New York Times Published: July 25, 1981. Also discredited attempt and original research are your interpretations, not any consensus findings. But you digress. Back to the consensus second paragraph proposed above for the OLR entity. The statement that he was never convicted of any act of violence is likely only solidly untrue statement in the article in the first three sections. The statement was strongly opposed by Republicans and law enforcement agencies, ignores that the US house of Representatives and Senate voted overwhelmingly (88% and 98% respectively) to oppose the clemency agreement. This is overwhelmingly bipartisan, not just Republican. The other paragraphs just need to have some additions of facts to counterbalance the bias, and I feel that can be done if you are not disruptive. Rococo1700 (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there anything new here, or do we need to continue repeating ourselves ad nauseum? The man is in jail, isn't he? He has served 32 of his 70 years, hasn't he? He was a member of the FALN, wasn't he? His parole petition was denied, wasn't it? He is still serving out his sentence for criminal activity, isn't he? Now, what else do you want? to execute him upside down at the stake in your backyard at noontime today to your salivating pleasure? If the House opposed the clemency extended to OLR by Clinton when Clinton extended clemency to the other 11 FALN defendants, so what? The President has it in his power to do so whether Congress (or you) likes it or not, and the President and the Congress have been at odds on many other clemency cases in the past. That was the checks and balances system that the Founding Fathers designed for the country. So get over it, if you want "violent criminal" to appear in the article, you need sources to support what so far has been a WP:OR POV of yours. Mercy11 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's really very simple. If Rococo1700 attempts to inject original research or primary sources into this article, he will answer for it. He has already received fair warning. Sarason (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Mercy11 asks what is new here? The answer is straightfoward. He defends the following opinion: López Rivera was never convicted of crimes that resulted in deaths or injuries.[6] López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence.[7][8][9][10][11]

I say that is an opinion. As I state above, others note the conspiracy for which he was convicted included violent acts that caused death and injury. They note that Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery, among other offenses, and that is an violent crime.

Sarason, do not threaten editors.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarason what are your threatening me with?
Oh by the way Sarason, what does your threat he will answer for it entail? Are your going to get physical? Are your going to use bolded capital letters? Are you going to boot me from Wikipedia? Please be specific. Also next time do answer directly how the text above is inappropriate, rather than personal threats.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no threat in reminding you, and giving you fair warning, that continued bad faith editing is subject to consequent review and potential administrative action. It's all up to you. Sarason (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, your prior warning was more vague and therfore more ominous in tone. That type of behavior is subject to consequent review and potential administrative action. Now you need to find a consensus edit, I have fowarded my suggestions, and I have called for the second paragraph to be removed if we can not reach a consensus, until one can be reached that is satisfactory to a consensus of editors. Stop with warnings and get to nitty gritty of the paragraph. Rococo1700 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Second paragraph
The paragraph I have suggested to substitute for the present paragraph is as follows:


 * President Clinton's offer of clemency to former FALN members, including Oscar, was strongly opposed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the US House of Representatives (311-41). and Senate (95-2) President Clinton and others defended the clemency offered to Oscar stating that López Rivera was never convicted of specific crimes that resulted in deaths or injuries. and that López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence.   Others however point out that Oscar Lopez was convicted initially, among other charges, of armed robbery, which is considered by the Department of Justice as a violent crime.  . They consider as additional evidence that he is a violent criminal, that the conspiracy for which he was convicted included being: "prime recruiter for members of the underground terrorist group, and has been a key trainer in bombing, sabotage and other techniques of guerilla warfare. He has set up a series of safehouses and bomb factories across the country, (with) literally hundreds of pounds of dynamite and other forms of high explosive, blasting caps, timing devices, huge caches of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, ... and the proceeds of the armed robberies of locations such as a National Guard Armory, Chicago's Carter-Mondale Re-Election headquarters, radio and communications companies, as well as a variety of stolen vehicles."

Rococo1700 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article is disputed
After reviewing all the needed steps and all the prior efforts to change this article, I have place a neutrality dispute at the heading of the article. From what I can see in Wikipedia that is needed for that is a discussion in the talk page, unresolved disputes, and different authors concerned about point of view problems in this article. From seeing the backlogs in other articles, and the difficulties in resolving problems for this article, I sense this will be a long and highly contentious process, my sense is that his banner will need to stay on till the end. I did not post a complaint at NPOv boards since there is a DR/N in process.Rococo1700 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree with the inclusion of the neutrality template. This article clearly has some issues which could be helped by neutral third parties. NickCT (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Added Terrorism Project Banner
I have placed a Project Terrorism banner which reflects a fairly active group with interests in issues matching OLR's history. The involvement of OLR is mentioned extensively in Effects and effectiveness of law enforcement intelligence measures to counter homegrown terrorism: A case study on the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN); Final Report to the Science & Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, August 2012; hence including him in this project is entirely appropriate. I expect that editors, new to the article, can be recruited from this group with understanding of the subject and may give some guidance as to how to remove biases and apt sources.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Time for Revision of the Article
DRN did not solve the dispute. I have placed my suggested revision of the second paragraph. I am going to slowly work through the article. I welcome comments on how to work to remove the lack of neutrality flagRococo1700 (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop changing the article to read the way you like it. You were given instructions HERE on how to proceed next. Mercy11 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop reverting the well sourced edits. Please address the text. Please read the DRN note. These were not instructions, you are wrong in saying so.Rococo1700 (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What's going on here? Rococo1700 opened a DR that resulted in a "no original research or primary sources" opinion. He opened a second DR that no volunteer even considered, and went stale after 11 days. Now he comes back here, and injects his original research and primary sources all over again. The lede is now a mess: overlong, stuffed with primary research, definitely not an introduction to the article. When is this going to end? Sarason (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What's going on here?? The recent DRN did not find "no original research or primary sources" opinion. That is not true. The fact no volunteer took this up does not mean my recommended changes are not apt and correct. You and Mercy11 refuse to even discuss the facts, but continue to make baseless accusations. It may be this that drives editors away. It will not drive me away. As the article stood, it plainly states incorrect facts. The pardon for OLR was opposed by overwhelming bipartisan margins in votes by both houses of congress. You fail to counter this with any facts. Again do not just complain and gripe, but look at the facts. Show me some evidence that this did not happen. OLR was convicted by an arm of the US judiciary of using force to commit robbery. Robbery is a violent crime according to the US Department of Justice. Fact. The statement as I placed it in the article stands. You need to see how these facts can be incorporated into the article. I have made a concession already by the way it is worded. Now Mercy11 needs to deal with the text. Please do not revert for the third time. It is evident from the discussion above with prior editors that others have found problems with this article. I have no fear and no doubt that an honest evaluation of the facts and sources will support my statements. You are becoming desperate and seek to attack me and warn me, but fail to look at the evidence.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Rococo, You already ask and didnt get consensus for your additions. my suggestion is to step away for the article and the topic for a while, I think your passion against the subject is getting in the way of neutrality. Cheers, --Jmundo (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Rococo: numerous editors, both in this Talk Page as well as in your two DRNs have stated you need to seek consensus. Making changes on your own is not seeking consensus. If you want to make any progress, I suggest you drop the armed robbery/violent criminal/terrorist crusade. I don't see you have one iota of support for those notions neither in the literature nor among editors here, there, and everywhere. That would be a first major step form you that you are willing to enter into an honest dialogue. As to the pardon being opposed by overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses, so what? that is a fact, but you are making an Everest out of a molehill. The article needs that fact but only once in the body (not the lede) and move on, but you are trying to make and disproportionate issue of it. That's discussed in WP:WEIGHT. If the article was 100K long, that sort of detail would be OK, but putting that sort of detail, and especially in the lede does not make for a good lede. Please get it into you: no one here is saying you cannot add that Congress voted 17 trillion to 1 (or whatever the numbers were) against Clinton's pardon. What is being said is you need to follow WP:WEIGHT if you are going to say that. This are not Sarason's or Mercy11's rules; they are Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia doesn't care if armed robbery is teh most violent crime in the galaxy; it does care if you add it via WP:OR. That's your problem with those edits. Find sources that state your "OLR is a violent criminal" allegations and you should be OK. Your sources so far dont say that without you milking it out. Have other editors found "problems" (as you call it with the article? perhaps. But not a single editor has supported your violent criminal WP:SYNT. Mercy11 (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Mercy11, Opposition to the clemency was not only by Republicans and Law enforcement
Again, Mercy11 it is perfectly appropriate to revert your sentence. The information is wrong. The Senate voted 95-2 in the Senate, 311-41 to oppose the clemency, that represents both Republicans and Democrats. Again your revert, but fail to address content. You have been invited to join mediation, where we can address other parts of the article. If you wish to add the details that Republicans in the House were more vocal to the way the pardon decision was pursued, you could; however, I think that is more apt for the entry on the Clinton Pardon Controversy. Rococo1700 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Lets work through this sentence by sentence
I have only added the first sentence. to the second paragraph. We can then move on to consensus statements on further statements. Rococo1700 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for the first sentence, so why you added is beyond me. Mercy11 (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You again do not even address the facts presented, there is no consensus for what is in the article now. It is not factual and obviously disproved by the facts.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have posted more citations for the same fact. Rococo1700 (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The facts is not the main problem. The main problem I see is violation of WP:LEDE and WP:BLP. You continue to ignore the FACT that Wikipedia is ruled by WP:PG, not by WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. Cherry-picking does not move you along very well. The rules state that the lede is supposed to serve as "a summary of the [article's] most important aspects". Those figures must be discussed in the text to be present in the lede. Also, we don't refer to subjects by their first names. You are also not justifying removal of an entire paragragh which is well sourced. Other than that, I see no objection to the direction you are taking. Mercy11 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Mercy11, I don't speak in abbreviations, but after reviewing all the links in you paragraph above, I conclude even more strongly that the sentence as I wrote it, is far more appropriate for the introduction. The problem with your sentence is that it is not true.

It is a falsehood. You state

The president's offer was strongly opposed by Republicans and law enforcement agencies. and cite a blog magazine.

I state

President Clinton's offer of clemency to former FALN members, including Oscar, was strongly opposed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the US House of Representatives (311-41) and Senate (95-2)''.

I cite for this a Wall Street Journal article that states unequivocally Resolutions condemning the president's action were passed with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate, 311-41 in the House.

and in addition, I cite both of the resolutions as stated in the Congressional Record that voted overwhelmingly, both Republicans and Democrats:

That it is the sense of Congress that making concessions to terrorists is deplorable and that President Clinton should not have offered or granted clemency to the FALN terrorists.

One of these was OLR.

You say it violates WP:LEDE. How can a statement that corrects an error in your sentence violate WP:LEDE for me and not for you? That is utter nonsense. Second you say it violated WP:BLP, but do not explain. Arbitrary WP:IJUSTLIKEIT statements like that are utter nonsense. You can't just wave WP letters and say you are right without good sourcing.

Next you say I remove an entire paragraph, that is not true, and clearly demonstrates that you are not reading the text but only acting to compel others to enter your opinions into Wikipedia, regardless of the facts. I have asked for mediation of the article, please do not revert the text again without a cogent argument or examination of the issues. Rococo1700 (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't introduce details in the lede that are not discussed in the article. The other issues are discussed in the article, that;s why they are permissible in the lede. Mercy11 (talk)
 * Actually, the word used in WP:Lead is “should” which is means it’s aspirational, not mandatory. Anyway, the sentence you seem to prefer is “The president's offer was strongly opposed by Republicans and law enforcement agencies.”  I looked and I can’t seem to find that “detail” anywhere in the article.  Have I overlooked it by chance?  Hammersbach (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Froglich's reversion of the deletion by Helpsome. I have left a comment on his talkpage, to focus on finding solutions. His last commentary on this talk page avoided answering content issues he himself brought up. I have opened a mediation for this paragraph, but it will be a useful strategy to get a balanced article completed. My goal is not to delete the opinion of those who believe or claim OLR is innocent, nonviolent, a patriot, a force for good, etc. I welcome those opinions in an article about him, but it is not appropriate to delete or prevent the inclusion of substantial opinions, official statements by the court, publications that argue against this opinion. We need to include the true events. You can't just say he was convicted of seditious conspiracy, and neglect to state that the conspiracy including the participation in an organization that set off bombs that killed civilians. Specially when the words of the court, no hearsay testimony, not prosecutor statements, in his conviction or evaluation of his conviction by a parole board state this. In addition, the reports prepared by congress need to be included in the article, and have at least as much weight as the opinions of Desmond Tutu and Tito Kayak. I am not sure how the mediation will proceed, if they wish to lock article as it is or delete that entire paragraph until a consensus is reached, I am OK with either. I do think there has to be an open-ness by the party of Mercy11 and JMundo and Sarason, that the article needs to allow for opposing views, held by many citizens, to surface in the article. I myself have moderated my claim that OLR is a violent criminal (which I still hold is true by definition) to making my statement one where many believe that ... This is the type of article that challenges Wikipedia to find consensus.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of sourced and cited material
A sentence was recently deleted on the grounds "the sources do not support this sentence." However I read the sources, and two of them were specifically on point. The CNN article contains a direct quotation from President Clinton, stating that "None of them were convicted of doing bodily harm to anyone." The article itself also states that "None of those granted clemency were convicted of the actual bombings." The last sentence of the Primera Hora article states (in Spanish) that Oscar Lopez Rivera "was never charged with violent acts, or with having caused any death." Given the appropriate citation and sourcing, this sentence should not have been removed. It is now restored. Sarason (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the opinions above should be included, since they did form part of the basis for the clemency offer. I just added that the opposition to the clemency by congress was based on a disagreement with the premise of those prior statements. I think both ideas should be included as well-sourced opinions. Rococo1700 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

FALN as a Stalinist terrorist group which fought to transform Puerto Rico into a communist state during the 1970s
I am not sure I can agree with the description of a Stalinist group which fought to transform Puerto Rico into a communist state during the 1970s. I agree with the terrorist part. The problem with the Stalinist label is that I am not sure that the FALN had much of a cohesive well worked out ideology. The group at times does not appear to be that cohesive, but a number of loosely affiliated individuals who got together to make bombs. The article by R. Bella on Effects and effectiveness of law enforcement intelligence measures to counter homegrown terrorism: A case study on the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN); Final Report to the Science & Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, August 2012; is engaging reading on the behavior of the FALN members. They just don't seem to have been the types to hang around in cafe's discussing ideology. While some of their fliers may have given the sense of ideology, they also tended to change names of groups in order to give a sense of a larger series of groups. Finally, while they had goals for PR, they mainly performed acts in the continental states. In that sense they were not transforming PR, but hoping to create a sense of terror in the US that might create antagonism and resentment by the US towards PR and PRicans. I do recognize that it is suspected a few FALN members fled to Cuba, but we do not hear from them anymore. It is not clear if they were stripped of any money and conveniently jailed. We just don't know enough about ideology. I vote for simplifying to FALN as a terrorist group.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While the average recruit in these terrorist groups was dumber than a box of hair, the ringleaders knew what they wanted; and what they wanted was "Implementation of the Stalinist ideological position." As such, I see no reason not to take them at face value.[/i], particularly in hindsight with the knowledge that an eventual dictatorship (in the Stalinist mold) is what was "implemented" in every case other violent groups similar to the FALN managed succssful putsches during the Cold War. ...This is also why I'm altering the various unqualified "nationalist" references; as claiming to be nationalists was a base propaganda position for the myriad violent groups attempting to turn their locales into Soviet satellites. (To make a contemporary analogy -- aside from the obvious Ukrainian one in which all of the "Nationalists" are on Putin's payroll -- it'd be as if an Islamist terrorist group seeking to impose Shari'a were to claim it was "nationalist".)--Froglich (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop inserting the material without offering secondary/reliable sources. --Jmundo (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Huffington News
Sarason, if you mouse over the photo of Acevedo Vila and the woman in the mock jail, a sliding window displays with the information in question. It is ambiguous and obscure and perhaps we should find a different source for this. Hope this helps. Mercy11 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I restored most of the paragraph with the original Huffington Post citations. Sarason (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)