Talk:Oscar López Rivera/Archive 5

RfC: How do can we describe and cite the crimes for which OLR was convicted?
This process may be one way we can make progress on this article bit by bit. We could alternatively use rfc for history or politics.

I find that newspaper reports are often cursory descriptions of the nature of the crime. Other sources used in this article are biased and do not accurately represent the conviction.

I found more detailed descriptions, made by: 1) Effects and effectiveness of law enforcement intelligence measures to counter homegrown terrorism: A case study on the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN); Roberta Belli, Final Report to the Science & Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, August 2012. 2) The US House of Representatives report in 1999 on the FALN pardons 3) A summary report by OLR's Department of Justic parole board 4) A detailed interview of Richard Hahn, the FBI agent who helped direct the task force that led to the arrest and conviction of the FALN members. He also gave a deposition to the US House of Representatives in 1999.

In the past, I have had assertions citing these sources repeatedly deleted from the article. I would like to use them as sources explaining what the FALN seditious conspiracy included.

Also prior versions of the article stated that he had not been convicted of acts of violence. I disagree on many levels with that assertion. The seditious conspiracy included violent acts, including bombings, but for most of these, it couldn't be proven exactly who made the bomb, who placed it, who was the lookout, etc. Also some of the acts included armed robbery, considered by the federal government as a violent crime. Finally, his planned prison escapes included a high potential for violence. I think this is important because this was used by a spokesperson for President Clinton as a rationale for the FALN pardons, including that of OLR. I would like to insert into the article why many would disagree in OLR's case. Again, one could cite many of the same sources.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Rococo1700 (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:RS is fairly clear on what constitutes a usable source. Certainly mainstream newspapers, scholarly books, and government reports are all good sources. I see no justification for deleting any of the sources you specify.
 * WRT the "terrorist" and "violent" adjectives, they seem obvious to me. The man refuses to denounce terrorist tactics, which in the context of the charges against him is tantamount to claiming a terrorist identity. Certainly government agencies have labeled him as such. And certainly conspiracies involving explosives or armed robbery--including those that led to murder--are inherently violent.
 * This article at this date appears to have a slight pro-Oscar bias (too much emphasis on his political prisoner status relative to his criminal convictions), and is poorly written and poorly organized. This often happens to contentious WP articles that attract political activists. The situation is unfortunate. It basically needs to be rewritten from scratchPokey5945 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. Where drive by editors, who have no hidden agenda and no position on Puerto Rican independence, repeatedly note the article's bias, poor organization and sourcing, something is seriously wrong with the perspective of the controlling editors. This skewing of the article's content cannot happen by chance. Pro-independence, political activists have shaped the article to minimize OLR's crimes and create sympathy for a prisoner who was engaged in terrorism. That is the reality. That is what is going on here. Example: Readers will be shocked to learn that an alleged leader of FALN, apprehended for possession of bomb making materials, convicted on weapons charges and armed robbery, is so very nonviolent. Eudemis (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There has been a great deal of pontificating and filibustering on this Talk Page. Please allow me to reiterate (in a few simple words) that properly sourced material is not to be removed, and improperly sourced material will be removed. Sarason (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Pokey, newspapers and books are fine but government reports are WP:PRIMARY sources and must be used to support secondary sources only. See WP:WPNOTRS. We cannot say the man is a terrorist and violent simply because "the man refuses to denounce terrorist tactics, which in the context of the charges against him is tantamount to claiming a terrorist identity". To do so would be POV unless you also included he is a freedom fighter and political prisoner. We don't say George Washington was a terrorist and violent for the same reason. We can, however, say that source X claims he is a terrorist and source Y claims he is violent. By way of contrast, Nelson Mandela was listed as a a terrorist and violent by the USA, so we need to be specific. (The US later became ashamed of its labeling and took him off the terror list even attended his funeral.) Yet "even Amnesty International refused to take on Nelson Mandela's case because they asserted that he was no political prisoner but had committed numerous violent crimes and had had a fair trial and a reasonable sentence." However, Amnesty International did come to the aid of OLR.("Allegations of Ill-Treatment in Marion Prison, Illinois, USA", Amnesty International, May 1987, p. 15.). You misuse the words "Government agencies" I am afraid. What basis are you using to say that Gov't agencies labeled him terrorist and/or violent? As for emphasis, if the article has too much emphasis on his political prisoner status relative to his criminal convictions that is not a sign of it being pro-Oscar bias. That's a sign of it containing the pro-Oscar (as you called it) information -and- it missing the con-Oscar information. Rococo has been working on adding the con-Oscar information, and that is a good thing (so long as it is sourced as the pro-Oscar information has been). The problem is that Rococo, in his quest to make the article less pro-Oscar bias, has also been deleting pro-Oscar information. He then complains that he gets reverted. Such method of neutralizing an article is not supported by The Neutral Point of View Policy: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." That's why he runs into conflict with other editors here. Mercy11 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Eudemis, but conversely you can also claim that editors with no knowledge of Puerto Rican independence issues are in a poor position to argue the facts whether for or against it, just as editors with no knowledge of American Revolutionary history are in a poor position to argue the pro and cons of the American Revolution, or for or against its supporters and detractors, or whether they were patriots or traitors, deserters and criminals. Point is, it would be POV (and foolish) to consider only the American side in an article about the American War of Independence - e.g., why did the British come back 35 years later, in 1812, and burned down Washington DC, etc. So, drive by or not, Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, it is not fed by the status of an editor or by the number of editors that support the ultranationalist American view, but by the quality of the arguments made. WP:RS is policy and if WP:RSes support a minimalistic view of the "OLR's crimes and create sympathy for a prisoner who was engaged in terrorism" rather than the ultranationalist American view that some editors here have proclivity on presenting, then that minimalistic view gets included in the article. You might not agree with the policy and you might not agree with the sources, but that is part of what makes the cut into the article per WP:V. Note that this does not imply that the opposite view, the ultranationalist American view, doesn't also make it in; the two are not mutually exclusive. Your position has been that the two are mutually exclusive, and I disagree with that because Wikipedia does not agree with such exclusionist view.  Primary sources do not support the "terrorism" claim you are ascribing; it is your own POV based, rightfully, on what secondary sources claim. But other secondary sources claim the opposite, that he is a freedom fighter for Puerto Rican independence and a political prisoner. But to present him as a terrorist only is a problem because primary sources do not support that claim. So far, only interpretive analyses of secondary sources support such claim. If you want to present him only as a terrorist, then you first need to go back and resolve the inconsistency between primary and secondary sources. Also, you seem to be stating that possession of weapons and possession of bomb-making material are violent crimes. What are your sources for that? Can you elaborate on that? As for armed robbery, that can be a separate discussion because the different sources appear to contradict themselves on this issue as it relates to OLR. Go ahead and open a separate discussion for the armed robbery part and we can discuss that part there. Mercy11 (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As someone that familiar with Rococo's edits to this article, I know there are various issues that Rococo has so far failed to get agreement on and, IMO, much of that has been due to his presentation style, and his RfC write-up above exemplifies several of these presentation style problems. Basically, he is quite vague in pinpointing the exact issue he is trying to address and, where there is perception of POV, being vague is perhaps the worst thing you can do. My wall-of-text that follows is, unfortunately, a reflection of Rococo's myriad of objections, but likewise his failure to address only one issue at a time until there is consensus and then to ALSO respect the consensus and live by it. Anyway, here are my observations:
 * 1) Rococo has been having many objections, but he lumps them together in a vague fashion, without exactly identifying each one of them. It is very difficult to make intelligent comments when the issues are vague, nebulous, or poorly identified. Even the title Rococo has chosen for the RfC "How do can (sic) we describe and cite the crimes for which OLR was convicted?" leaves endless chances for wandering what he is trying to achieve. I mean, the simple answer is, of course, that WP:RS explains how. But obviously that is not what the RfC is looking for. At best, and no offense, there is a disconnect between the title of the RfC and the description that follows. Let me be specific without being funny: Just as there are many ways to answer "How do you skin a cat?", there are also many ways to answer the RfC's "How do we describe and cite...". IMO, the question can only be more effective if it is asked in a "What", "When", "Where", or "Why" form - there are far less chances for vagueness, ambiguity and misunderstanding when asked in this way.
 * 2) In any event, as for Roberta Belli, I haven't seen any disagreement to using Roberta Belli's Effects and effectiveness of law enforcement intelligence measures to counter homegrown terrorism: A case study on the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN) from any of the involved editors. If there is, can you provide diff link so we can see what you are talking about? Diffs are fairly easy to use and are encouraged for this sort of purpose. Failure to being specific doesn't help to identify where the problem or objections reside. For example, Was the wording from Belli's doc changed? Was it used in the lede without being used in the body? Was it used to present only one side of the story in violation of WP:NPOV? Was it referenced without providing exact cite (pg #, etc)? Was it used to do WP:SYNT with other cites and arrive at WP:OR? etc, etc. This is only a sampling of issues that may have provoked the objection, reversal or deletion Rococo is trying to describe. Without being specific, it is very difficult to make any intelligent comments.
 * 3) While you are very specific on the citation for the Roberta Belli work (though not the issue of contention as I indicated above) since you used a live link, you fail to do the same for your 3 other works you are referring to (the 1999 House Report on the FALN pardons, the DoJ parole board summary report, and the Richard Hahn interview). Again, without specifics WP editors cannot make informed observations. Any responsible editor will make comments only after having all the facts, or at least a reasonable number of the facts, at his disposal. The facts are not all here because you didn't provide specifics.
 * 4) You state "I find that newspaper reports are often cursory descriptions of the nature of the crime." Seems you are trying to say you want to use non-newspaper sources and perhaps you even mean you do not want to depend on secondary sources for (perhaps, some) your edits. If this what you mean, this matter was already addressed at the WP:DRN you filed HERE and the closing admin there determined that the sources you were attempting to use were WP:PRIMARY sources and thus in violation of WP:V. If using primary sources is what you want, you need to understand that policy states [WP:NOTRS|HERE] that you can use primary sources but they must be in agreement with what secondary sources state so as not to be used as a vehicle to advance one's own POV via OR. It says, " All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. " I would point out that the policy already warns editors of the dangers of using primary sources. I would also warn Rococo that you can use primary sources but only so long as they are in agreement with what the newspapers and other secondary sources say: If the newspapers didn't say it, chances are it was either not factual or not important, and if you delve into something that wasn't important you are probably doing WP:OR.
 * 5) While editor Pokey5945 above may feel that government reports are "good sources", the closing admin at Rococo's DRN HERE was very specific that "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".  Such documents should not be used as the main citations to present factual information about about this WP:BLP.
 * 6) Ditto for your "explaining what the FALN 'seditious conspiracy' included". You need to be clear above what you mean by that statement because seditious conspiracy has only one meaning and it is found in the United States Code, Title 18, Section 2384. It says that it is the charge to "overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States." Have you looked it up yet? It has been in the article for weeks if not months. What is there to explain there?
 * 7) We don't label WP:BLP as "violent" because they planned to escape from jail with the potential to injure people. How ridiculous!  We don't label people as violent criminals until they have committed a violent crime. Please get real and stop arguing nonsense. Mercy11 (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to Mercy11: I have been plenty specific. Tiresomely so. Now to 2nd paragraph:

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 and the US Senate President Clinton and others defended the clemency offered stating that the FALN members, including López Rivera, were 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 also 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."

In many of Mercy11's and JMundo's postings with regard to OLR and other FALN members they misidentify the crimes, sometimes using sedition instead of seditious conspiracy; leaving out the armed robbery or conspiracy to escape convictions. Also they state that it was only a conspiracy or plan to escape, and that even if such a plan involved guns and dynamite, it was not violence, because it was only a plan. They claim that even if OLR was a conspirator in an organization that set off bombs and killed people, that does not mean he shares responsibility as bombers or killers.

To me the paragraph above settles the question OLR was convicted of violent crimes and the question of whether OLR is a terrorist. But again, there are many ways, to label OLR a violent terrorist. The Belli article describes OLR was personally linked to the New York Bomb factory. The then fugitive common-law wife of OLR was arrested with 11 other FALN members in a van in Evanston planning to rob an armored truck with sawed-off shotgun and other weapons (again this is part of the FALN seditious conspiracy). The FALN was involved in a bloody battle according to a feature article in Chicago Tribune (Gary Marx, 1985) titled Terrorism On Trial: Justice And The Faln. Or we can cite the Chicago Sun Times that referred to OLR as a member of a group (again the seditious conspiracy that formed the FALN activities) that ''terrorized Chicago and New York City during the 1970s and early 1980s with a string of explosions, murders, kidnappings and armed-car heists that culminated with the 1975 lunch-time bombing of the Fraunces Tavern in New York City that killed four and injured more than 60 others. The group simultaneously took over the Chicago presidential campaign offices of Jimmy Carter in 1980 and the New York campaign offices of Republican George Bush, holding campaign workers at gunpoint while ransacking the offices and stealing supporter lists. In that article both Joseph Connor, son of one of those killed by the FALN, and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald weighed in against parole for Lopez Rivera; the prosecutor described OLR as a “tactical, strategic and philosophical leader” of the now-disbanded terrorist group''[]. Finally does the inclusion of FALN in the SAGE encyclopedia of Terrorism, as the perpetrator of a bloody and infamous attack qualify as the FALN organization as a terrorist organization. [SAGE encyclopedia, page 193. The FALN member Haydee Beltran Torres, wife of his FALN colleague and fugitive Carlos Torres, who was linked with OLR through the New York Bomb factory and through membership in their fund-raising Hispanic council (see Belli). Torres and OLR became fugitives when the NY bomb factory was uncovered. She was convicted ultimately of killing someone by placing the bomb in the Mobil Oil building in NY. Again, she was not offered clemency but she was part of the seditious conspiracy that was carried out by the FALN, of which OLR was a tactical, strategic, and philosophical leader at the time of the bombing. Again, I am not surmising that he was part of this conspiracy, he was convicted of conspiracy, which includes the actions of the FALN. The former FALN member Alfred Mendez testified that OLR was directly involved in making bombs and in the plans for kidnapping. The latter is also cited in a Chicago tribune article. OLR was convicted of planning a violent jailbreak . Finally, I still think the reason Wikipedia does not want to use court documents as sources, is that they often contain hearsay or incomplete statements. However, we should not disavow the use of summary conclusions, by for example, the parole court  in a different fashion, these are not hearsay. This is specially true when the facts stated there are reinforced independently by US Congress reports. Again the Commission Chairman stated OLR was sentenced to 55 years’ imprisonment following his ... conviction for seditious conspiracy, use of force to commit robbery, interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition to aid in the commission of a felony, and interstate transportation of stolen vehicles. The offenses arose out of his role in FALN,... whose activities included over 100 bombings in which six (6) people were killed and others maimed. Again this information is also cited in SAGE and Chicago Tribune articles. Note added: the FALN was not called a terrorist organization by the state department in 1983, because that was not part of the process in 1983, when they were arrested. However the first US Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) established in April, 1980, had as one of its goals to pursue threats from the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN).

Again, lets make this simple: OLR was convicted of violent crimes. OLR was a leader of a terrorist organization.

These are not observations, they are facts. You can go argue against Mandela somewhere else. I am convinced, like other editors, that the predominance of the non-biased sources agree with both those points. They should be prominently cited in the article, and certainly if the article introduces statements about those who think he deserves to be freed in the lead paragraphs, they need to introduce facts that lead others to conclude that he should not be released. NB:Again, I have no objections to having some state that he is a political prisoner, freedom fighter, saint or whatever, but that has to be balanced with official facts. Rococo1700 (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you have not been "plenty specific". Examples: (1) "Other sources used in this article are biased and do not accurately represent the conviction." Which sources? (2) "In the past, I have had assertions citing these sources repeatedly deleted from the article." When in the past? Which assertions? On what day and time? Where is the diff to show what you are alleging? (3) "In many of Mercy11's and JMundo's postings with regard to OLR and other FALN members they misidentify the crimes." Which postings? Which crimes? Where are the diffs??? I could go on but offer these 3 examples to simply debunk your "I have been plenty specific claim." We cannot respond responsibly to a RfC when such level of vagueness exists. And, if you are looking for a blanket approval to go ahead and do as you have in your mind (whatever that may be), it cannot happen under such vagueness.


 * We "make this simple" by editing with facts, and the fact is that your edits HERE have no citation, starting with the ridiculous claim that he was a "revolutionary", a fact that was also, and specifically removed before HERE with an edit summary of "Sorry but this is unsourced". Also, regarding THIS edit from you, the claim the "the US Government convicted..." doesn't exist on that cited reference. It was both correct and truthful the way it was before. Reverted. Once you start complying with policy WP:V via sourcing your edits then I can start to take you more seriously on your propositions above. For example, your proposed second paragraph is not only POV but also in disagreement with WP:LEDE. The lede is for summarizing the article, not to give extensive quotes as you are proposing.  For now all I continue to see in a relentless desire to push your own POV that OLR was a violent criminal. Reverted also. This article is about OLR, not about the FALN, so even if the FALN bombed the entire Milky Way galaxy you cannot say that OLR was found guilty of bombing the MWG.


 * Your statement "They [the "facts"] should be prominently cited in the article, and certainly if the article introduces statements about those who think he deserves to be freed in the lead paragraphs, they need to introduce facts that lead others to conclude that he should not be released" typifies your POV-pushing. Yes Sir, the article "introduces statements about those who think he deserves to be freed"; there is nothing wrong with stating the John Doe Cardinal or Mary Doe Nobel laureate think OLR should be free. But, no Sir, that does not mean that "they [the lede paragraphs] need to introduce facts that lead others to conclude that he should not be released." All it means is that the lede should, likewise, also introduce statements about those who think he deserves to be kept in prison. It does not mean as you are stating that the lede, or any of part of the article can "introduce facts that lead others to conclude that he should not be released." This is not the place to promote your political belief for other readers to be lead to conclude anything, whether to be released or to be kept in prison. Go take your radical views and POV pushing elsewhere, such as your own blog. You will not be allowed that in Wikipedia.Mercy11 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * (1) Published government reports are not primary sources. I see no reason not to cite them. Published appellate court rulings are often cited in WP. (2) While I am not expert in FALN in particular, I am expert in violent American social movements of the 20th century as a class. Claims of persecution and being a political prisoner are not especially notable in this context. In fact, they are routine. They are also routinely supported by some academics and various international organizations. This is normal. That is why giving excess space to this material constitutes undue weight. The claim should be entered in the article, but the space allotted should be minimal compared to the actual offense and punishment. As a rule of thumb, consider how much space should be allotted to OJ's search for the real killers. That's about how much space political prisoner claims deserve.Pokey5945 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to have overlooked that the Cardinal of NYC, 10 Nobel Peace Prize winners, President Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu (and the list goes on and on and on) all objected to this imprisonment to the point they each wrote to the President Clinton about it. As an expert in the area of violent American social movements, can you list all the other prisoners that also had "claims of persecution and being a political prisoner...[that were] not especially notable in this context"? When you have cases like OLR where the objection is cross-sectionally politically, religiously, civic, etc, as well as no limited to the US but is worldwide, these then of course we provide those facts and do so in a proportion that is beyong that of any other extremist. To think they have "constitute undue weight" could hardly be considered a neutral point of view. Mercy11 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, the "political prisoner" trope is normal in such cases, as are the sources of support for that designation. Current examples might include Peltier or Mumia. I see nothing out of the ordinary in Oscar's support. It would be more enlightening to provide a list of violent nationalist or revolutionary activists in the US who were not hailed as political prisoners, and who did not receive "worldwide" support for that claim. I agree that this designation deserves mention, but it should not be overemphasized or presented as something out of the ordinary. Nor should it be presented as somehow justifying or legitimizing the violence, for that would constitute undue POV.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why the revert of the Dumbot version with the comment "unsourced"? I saw many good sources eliminated in this rv. The Dumbot version was replaced with a more-POV version. It seems to me that instead of a mass rv, it would be better to simply identify the unsourced passage.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you 110% that "political prisoner" is an opinion and should not be presented as fact - but so is the "terrorist" claim, for this man was never convicted of terrorism or of even killing anyone or even hurting anyone, nor even listed in any terrorist list. (Clinton stated that this was why he offered to release him from prison.) That said, both such sides/opinions deserve about the same amount of weight-space in the article. However, your statement that "political prisoner...should [not] be presented as somehow justifying or legitimizing the violence" is incorrect because it assumes that OLR was involved in acts of violence and president Clinton himself said he never hurt anyone. We are not going to put the word "violent" anywhere in the article until the opposing editor/s can come up with a valid source that can be cited to that effect, "for that", to use your words, "would constitute undue POV". So far all there have been are only attempts at WP:SYNT and WP:OR.


 * You and I are also in agreement that published government reports can be used as sources. The objection is not as to their use, but as to the manner in which they are used. The objection is to their blanket use in a case when the Government is a party to the dispute when doing so in order to create the impression that the content of such reports reveal factual reality (i.e., "in this context") when their content only reveals the Government's side in the case. There is an enormous difference between the two uses: one use is NPOV, the other one is not. Some people appear to be under the naive impression that any and all Govt reports establish actual reality. The fact is that they cannot be considered reliable sources (for the establishment of factual reality) when the Govt gets to gain from the contents of such report. Now, note I am not saying we cannot use Govt reports as a source to present the Govt's view (no source is entirely neutral and they don't have to be according to our policies - only the article needs to be neutral). What I am saying is that, because the Govt is a party to the dispute, we cannot use Govt reports (at least the one presented so far) to establish factual reality in this case (the OLR case). The same thing would be true of reports commissioned by OLR or by any of his representatives, lawyers, family, etc., because they too are a party to the dispute. Since they too are a party to the dispute, such family, etc, reports can be used to present their side, not to establish factual reality.


 * IAE, you seem to have misread what I wrote. I never said OLR received worldwide support for the claim of being a political prisoner. I said he received worldwide support for an early release. I was also specific that the support came from prominent worldwide figures, not just a million nobodies. For example, I don't see that the two other "political prisoners" you provided, Mumia Abu-Jamal or Leonard Peltier, were supported 'in a pardon by 2 US presidents, 3 Cardinals, 10 Nobel Prize laureates, etc, etc. I don't see where you might think there is an analogy. Mumia's WP article, doesn't say anyone classifies him as a political prisoner. In fact, it says the opposite, that "Amnesty International [does not] classify him as a political prisoner". As for Peltier, according to his article, he is considered a political prisoner by his own people (the AIM). But this is just as OLR is consider a political prisoner by his own people, the people of Puerto Rico. However, that is where any analogy ends because OLR is considered a political prisoner by other non-Puerto Rican groups around the world in addition to his Puerto Rico homeland. (The OLR article, on the other hand, doesn't say this so that is it not out of weight with the "extremist nationalist" trope, but I can provide cites if you want to get into this detail.) Again, I am not sure why you brought up Mumia and Peltier for your list of cases. Perhaps you can clarify? IAE, the list of cases (you appear to have misread this) was for those who had support for release by US presidents, Cardinals from 3 continents, Nobel laureates from 10 all 7 continents, etc etc. Hopefully you have better analogies. If so, can you share them so we may compare and draw our own conclusions? Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) Comparing and contrasting people who claim political prisoner status would violate WP:OR. Let's not do that. (2) Labeling Oscar as a terrorist would violate WP:BLP. Let's not do that either. However, it should be recorded in this article -- in the intro and elsewhere -- that FALN has been designated and is widely recognized as a terrorist group, has carried out numerous terrorist attacks, and that this caused the government's interest in prosecuting Oscar. There is overwhelming evidence for this. (3) The validity of sources is not necessarily compromised simply by having a POV or by being party to one side in a dispute. There is no prima facie justification for doubting the veracity of a published government report in this specific instance. If you believe it is in error, then you should bring forth the contradicting sources.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mercy11 can you cite what the terrorism statutes in place in 1983 under which OLR could have been convicted? There were none. Again, he was convicted of a seditious conspiracy that consisted of being an active member of an organization that set off over 100 bombs and killed six people and maimed other. Yes he was convicted of aiding in the bombing and killing. you are wrong and the house report clearly states this. Also read his denial of parole by a commission that is part of the Department of Justice, which carries out his conviction. He was convicted of Robbery. These are violent offenses. At his trial, large tables were assembled with all the bomb materials and ammunition obtained from various safe houses linked to OLR. I have repeatedly sourced multiple articles that state he is violent.


 * Oh by the way, you may have 10 noble prize winners, but 90% of congress, from both parties, representing the vast majority of his fellow citizens condemned him as a terrorist and condemned the offer of clemency. That has to matter, and if you persist in keeping several congressman in the lede, this stays in the lede and will be featured prominently in article.


 * Again, if you persist in blanket deletions, they will be reverted. I urge you to seek mediation for the questions to which you seem to continually refuse to negotiate on good faith. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, Mr. Barcelo ally, of course I can help you answer your "cite what the terrorism statutes [were] in place in 1983" question, just like you wouldn't be charged today for not wearing your seatbelt while driving your car back in the 1960s - simply put, there was no seatbelt law then so you don't get charged as a bad driver today. I don't know where you come from, but where I come from -the good USA- we don't charge people today for "violations" they committed when no law yet existed prohibiting the act in question. Mr. Barcelo thought he could outsmart the people, and it is obvious from your question that he is still fooling some even today. Sorry, it is not meant personal; they are others in your same situation. His comments were the most ridiculous thing anybody has ever heard. As for the venerable Congress you can't stop talking about, they are a non-issue, a moot point, for they don't give pardons; only the President influenced by 10 Nobel laureates gives pardons. Not 90%, not 100%, not even 110% of Congress can give pardons. All their bitching counts for nothing. All of their chitty-chatty are just opinions grown out of frustration. In other words, Congress can bitch all they want, but they are not players in this equation, nor will they ever be. The only players here are the Judiciary (for convicting) and the Executive (for pardoning). That's all the Constitution allows. The Constitution doesn't care if 99% of its fellow citizens want to take the law on their own hands and lynch an accused. We have laws in the USA. Some people just don't seem to want to accept such simple fact. I suggest you get out of the little leagues and grow into the majors. Many editors have been repeating the same facts to you for weeks, you just don't seem to care to listen to reality. Mediation is not the place where the experienced editors discuss their differences; the talk page is: man-to-man, without daddy's help. Mercy11 (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So we should also remove all of the political prisoner stuff as well, since he was never named such in a court of law? That would be a continuation of your own idea. In addition, you may not know this, but by accepting a pardon you are also admitting you are guilty under US law. Neosiber (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * He wasn't offered a pardon, he was offered a more leanient sentence, aka clemency. No one has said Remove all the terrorist opinions. Political prisoner is the opinion of one side and so is the terrorist label. They both belong in the article, as what they are, opinions. WP:BLP is very particular about labeling people with undue adjetives and accussations. Mercy11 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You used the word pardon, so I just went with it. So you have no problem leaving that he is part of FALN, a terrorist organization in the lede. I have no idea why you continue to bring up the pardon/commutation neither of which changes the crimes committed or that he is a terrorist. The reason Rococo brought up congress is because the vast majority of them labeled Rivera a terrorist. You seem to want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your own opinions. Neosiber (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not just "Mercy's opinion." It is a perspective shared by many other editors on this page. It is also a perspective shared by 10 Nobel Peace Prize winners, Coretta Scott King, President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, as well as an international coalition of human rights, and religious, labor, and business leaders including the United Council of Churches of Christ, United Methodist Church, Baptist Peace Fellowship, Episcopal Church of Puerto Rico, and the Catholic Archbishop of San Juan. This perspective is also shared by the Governor of Puerto Rico, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, the Speaker of the New York City Council, and the majority of Puerto Ricans -- which constitutes millions of people. Sarason (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I dont think his membership in the FLAN is a disputed fact. No one is saying that Congress didn't call the FALN "terrorists". If you think I am using Wikipedia as a soapbox, you can report me. I can send you the link if you dont have it. Obviously I beleive I am following all WP rules, and obviously I believe your assessment of my motives/intentions is incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the important parts of Wikipedia, is consistency, for example it shouldn't contradict itself. Another is that when working on an article like this one, you keep it consistent with how similar articles are presented. OLR is a terrorist, just like Bin Laden, which means they should be listed similarly. You seem to follow the letter of the rules and utterly ignore the spirit of it. Neosiber (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)



Point #1) You can't put a statement from OLR's sister in the lead paragraph, and then delete substantiated facts from other sources that do not support her claim. OLR declined the clemency because he refused to forswear violence and avoid associating with other conspirators. Mercy11 continues to delete this even though it is well substantiated. It will continue to be inserted. If he disagrees, he can seek mediation, as he was previously offered but declined. I will not comment on his nonsense about maturity. Point #2) You can't use State department pronouncements to declare FALN members as terrorists because the state department did not make those pronouncements at the time. However, as I said, the FALN, at the time, was one of the main, if not the main, target of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. OLR was convicted of seditious conspiracy that comprised of bombings and killings carried out by the FALN. That makes the FALN a terrorist organization, and its members, terrorists. I can further substantiate this claim by contemporary newspaper articles in the Chicago Tribune, or the House and Senate resolutions, or quotation in the Sage Encyclopedia on Terrorism. Again you wanted some government organization to call them a terrorist. When you are the main or one of the main focuses of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the government is labeling you a terrorist group. If Mercy11 wishes to argue this, he should seek mediation, I, unlike him, would be delighted to join. Point #3) Barcelo's statement to the House meeting on FALN clemency refers to OLR. He was offered clemency with conditions, and declined. Barcelo objected to unconditional clemency. His opinion should equal Pierluisi's opinion, since he occupied the same position as Pierluisi. It is a well sourced opinion. Again, Mercy11's deletions have more to do with bias than reality. If Mercy11 wishes to argue this, he should seek mediation, I, unlike him, would be delighted to join. Point #4) I am rarely sure of what Sarason's point is. I have never deleted the paragraphs that cite the opinion of Noble prize winners and Tito Kayak; however, I am not going to dismiss the opinion of the elected representatives that represent millions, the vast majority, of fellow American citizens of OLR, including the opinion of the representative in congress of the people of Puerto Rico. This again, is a well sourced event. If the opinion of his sister of OLR and of one congressional representative merit inclusion in the opening paragraphs, then this opinion does also. Again, it is the lack of balance, and the continued deletion of well-sourced facts and opinions by Mercy11 and others, that marks this article as a troubled screed. Again Sarason, you were offered mediation, not only with me but with a number of other editors, but you declined. I am more than willing to discuss issues here, but I am not going to allow the continued deletions or past threats to prevent me from balanced editing.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We dont "seek mediation" when there is an ongoing RfC. If you proposed the RfC, then stop longing for the Mediation and live by the rules of teh RfC. That's how it works.
 * 1) If you belief there are other sources that do not support OLR sister's statement, then you have to have a source that states "OLR sister's statement is untrue because..." But you cannot, as you are doing, find an opinion that does not specifically addresses OLR sister's statement and place it juxtaposition to her statement. That is WP:OR.
 * 2) As you said "the FALN, at the time, was one of the main, if not the main, target of the Joint Terrorism Task Force." And as I said. being the main target of the JTTF doesn't make you a terrorist, anymore than being the target of an FBI investigation makes you a criminal.  Find a source for your "OLR was terrorist" claim. So far you have none, only opinions he was a terrorist, but no official pronouncement.
 * 3) Who is saying that Barcelo's opinion shouldn't be in the article? It is there. Please make your objection clear.
 * 4) Man, get over your Mediation gospel and start living in the present. You made certain recent changes to location reminecent of your infobox "nationality field" days. They were removed. Get over that man. A few editors you recenty cheered and supported were recently blocked because, like you, they were forcing the POV that Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. I hoped you can learn something from that. This is not the place for politics. Move on man.
 * Mercy11 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WRT your #1, it's not justification for keeping the sister's statement. The logic implies that whoever inserts a POV piece first gets the advantage, because the contradicting piece inserted becomes OR. That's not how WP works. WRT #2, we can state the the FALN was the target of the terrorism task force, is universally regarded as a terrorist group by terrorist databases and experts in terrorism.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * #1) The logic implies that if the claim has a WP:RS then it is in; if it doesn't, then it is out. There is no sourcing for "OLR sister's statement is untrue because..." As such, it doesn't belong in there. #2) A huge claim to "universally regarded" but no RS links to back it up. Claims don't make a difference in WP, links from RS do.Mercy11 (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Mercy11, WRT to #2, if you are the target of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and convicted of levying war against the government, you are a terrorist. The analogies that you cite have no relationship to the facts. Yes, they were the target, but also apprehended, and convicted of a seditious conspiracy.


 * Wrt to #3, Barcelo's objection should be there and have the same prominence as Pierluisi with respect to a release from prison. You had deleted this.


 * Wrt of your complaint about Mediation gospel, I find that when you are offered a platform to adjudicate facts and decline, but then engage in wanton deletions, accusations, threats etc, it diminishes the value of your opinions. Puerto Rico is part of the U.S.A., and to state otherwise, in this article, is erroneous and biased. I will argue the point with facts, anywhere, anytime, for as long as it takes. I am confident that the facts will bear me out. You are not in the same position, for this and many other opinions, and that is why, in the past, and even now, I suspect you would fear mediation. I didn't and I don't.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * #2) No WP:RS provided for the claims. A WP:SOAPBOX - WP:OR claim. #3 - Barcelo's imprisonment support occurred 15 years ago. That is not recent; it is not "continuous support:. Release support by Gutierrez, Pierluisi, Grayson and the others is from only 1-2 years ago - that IS continued support. The family's support IS continued, so that obviously stays. #4 If you think PR is part of the USA you can go ahead and make an issue of it at one of the other forums, and let the community at large decide that. I dont make those rules; I only follow policy. Mercy11 (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * With regard to the clemency offer, Barcelo's opinion is as valid now as then. If Barcelo's opinion is out of date, so is OLR's sisters opinion also expired since it is about the same clemency offer. Again, the well sourced comments are very relevant to reveal the thoughts of the Puerto Rican people through their democratically elected representative. That carries far more importance than someone's sister. I have not deleted OLR's sister's comments. You delete Barcelo's. That is the difference here. Your continue support notion is nonsense.There is no policy on Puerto Rico USA. The entry changes. you can seek mediation for this if you want. Oh I forgot, you decline to seek mediation. Rococo1700 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oscar López Rivera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130713141832/http://www.justice.gov/uspc/documents/pr021811.htm to http://www.justice.gov/uspc/documents/pr021811.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

López Rivera as a leader of FALN
The conviction of Lopez Rivera was not for making an illegal turn on the highway.They convicted him on a conspiracy associated with the FALN. Please read the documents from the Department of Justice, including his parole hearing. Please read any of the contemporary articles of his conviction. Please read the convictions of his wife and co-conspirators. Please read the act of congress on the clemency granted to the FALN members by Clinton.

This is a point in which the evidence is overwhelming, and included in the article.Rococo1700 (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The editor Segurolajorge is waging an editing war without providing evidence. My understanding is that he appears to state that there is no evidence or citation to the statement that "OLR was a leader in the FALN". I stated there is hordes of evidence (and citations). I recommend he read the discussion above and the references in the text itself. For example:
 * Roberta Belli text: Effects and effectiveness of law enforcement intelligence measures to counter homegrown terrorism: A case study on the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN). This text makes clear that OLR was part of a conspiracy that included the FALN. Remember, he was convicted in a court of law of this fact.
 * Also please see [House Report 106-488] From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, discussing clemency offered to FALN members including OLR and declined by OLR.
 * Also see all the newspaper articles from Chicago and New York about the FALN, for example the article titled ''Son of Reagan termed the Target of Terrorist Plot by Nathaniel Sheppard Jr, New York Times, July 25, 1981: It details the trial of OLR, including the testimony of Alfredo Mendez, one of the other 11 convicted FALN members, about how OLR instructed him on weapons manufacture.
 * Also if you go into the US Department of Justice pardon hearings for OLR, it is openly stated that he was a member of the FALN.

I am not sure of what your point is: are you saying the other 11 FALN members, which included his wife and the apartment-mates in New York, an apartment in his which was raided and found to be full of bomb-making materials and FALN documents, had nothing to do with him? That he had nothing to do with that conspiracy even though he was convicted of being a part of it?

What is your point? Again, my recommendation is to read the references already cited in the article, and tell me how they err in saying that he was a member of the FALN. Just saying "they don't say this", when they do, is not a reason to change. You need to bring evidence.Rococo1700 (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have again posted in SegurolaJorge's talk page my arguments. He refuses to provide any evidence to the contrary. Please see his talk pages for my specific contentions that OLR was a leader of the FALN. This is a non-contentious statement. You could say that OLR was involved in the Fraunces Tavern bombing- but that would be contentious, since he was not convicted of that specific crime. In face, nobody has ever been convicted of that crime, despite the fact that the FALN took credit for the bombing. However the fact that OLR was a leader in the FALN, was supported by all the evidence used in his conviction for the conspiracy, plus the testimony of co-conspirators, if not by his close collaboration in the conspiracy with other FALN members including Carlos Torres and Haydee Beltran among others.

My statement on SegurolaJorgen's talk page was that if he couldn' refute here or on his talk page these assertions, then this argument is over. He has continued to fail to make any specific responses. Again this is getting to be a useless argument. I provide proof, with specific citations, and he just says no with no basis other than "I say so". Rococo1700 (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Rococo1700 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Failure to attribute statements in article
I've been working to properly attribute statements made about López Rivera's criminal activities in the article: many statements and assertions that derive from police or prosecutors have not been attributed to them, and have instead been presented as simple facts.

The United States government was an adversarial party in López Rivera's arrest, trial and conviction. Their allegations may be true, but every statement made by US authorities must be attributed to them, and not presented in Wikipedia's voice.

A good, simple example is this: The New York Times wrote that "Mr. Lopez-Rivera was apprehended a few months ago, when, the authorities said, he made an illegal turn after running a stop sign in Glenview, a Chicago suburb, then gave the police a phony Oregon driver's license." After a POV butchery by editors here, this was translated to "It was a few years later that López Rivera was fortuitously apprehended, when he made an illegal turn after running a stop sign in a Chicago suburb, then gave the police a phony Oregon driver's license."

So, attribution is dropped, and the event is described as "fortuitous" (not in the source).

If you see other mistakes like this please correct them. -Darouet (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The example above is strange: OLR was not arrested because he was under surveillance or because he was committing a crime, but just because he made an illegal right turn. That happened by chance, not by design, certainly not by any design of the authorities that prosecuted him. That is the definition of fortuitous. Sorry if I was being bold in relaying information. Timothy McVeigh was fortuitously stopped because of a bad tail light. I suspect the editor may be misunderstanding the difference between fortuitously and fortunately. The latter would be POV, the former is not. Its just facts.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You're correct that "fortuitous" does not mean "fortunate," though it is commonly used in this way . In any case it can simply be stated that according to authorities, OLR was stopped when he made an illegal turn. -Darouet (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias?
I don't know which tag to add, but this is obviously a very biased article. Or should I say, "biased" article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.223.187 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 2 December 2005‎

Article needs bias removed
I can't find the edit button on this page, but many biased statements need to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbucher (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 February 2006‎

Needs attention
This article is a dog's breakfast. The section titles are terrible, too. It needs attention, ideally from someone quite familiar with Lopez's case.184.145.42.19 (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually there is plenty of work to be done even by those with little subject matter expertise. Just organizing and getting things into position, getting citations out of the summary unless they are essential, removing some wordy writing, completing citations. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I started a reorganization, just to get something like an outline. I get the feeling that there has been substantial episodes of biased editing in the past.  Somehow Clinton has almost no positive support for his conditional clemency, while Obama has very little criticism!  The escape attempt was practically buried.  The nuts-and-bolts details like which prison he was in when are handled only accidentally in the course of argument.  There is probably a lot of useful material to recover from the history, and in any case, the story needs to be fleshed out.  I just hope that a little organization will help things from getting so crazy again. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and  for your substantial improvements to this article. -Darouet (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf's edits
I have problems with Sangdeboeuf's selective edits on this text. He repeatedly only targets one version of the story, deletes items that are clearly stated in the sources. I am reverting the text to the original prior to his revisions. I prefer that you bring these up for discussion before unilaterally altering the established text, which attempted to provide a balanced, and sourced, biography. I recommend you see WP:BALANCE, WP:STRUCTURE, and WP:WEIGHT. You cannot just slant the text to your point of view.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me address some of the edits with specific comments: The introduction states correctly that OLR was a leader in the FALN, and notes that five deaths are attributed to the group. I do not think that the phrase killing five can be attributed grammatically to OLR, since it is separated from his name by a long phrase defining the FALN. One alternative would be to say that the FALN is a ''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]

I think it is important to link OLR to a group that was involved in violence that lead to deaths. The term "political prisoner" used later makes it sound that he was only imprisoned for his beliefs. This fact above, well sourced, provides balance. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to remove the new York daily news as a source, but only if it does not alter the fact that the FALN killed individuals during its campaign.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

In your edit on New York City police officer, Richard Pascarella, objection to the clemency, you state that one should refer to talk page, but as you know, the talk page does not contain any consensus that this should be changed. The item is well sourced and entirely relevant to the events surrounding the clemency. What matters is not how important you think an individual is, but how relevant he is to the events. For example, we cannot ignore the opinions of the Ron Goldman's family in the OJ Simpson trial, just because they are not famous. I have left the opinions of all those well-known individuals in the text, but when it comes to clemency or parole, victim statements have more weight than the opinions of prominent singers. Richard Pascarella was important enough to be quoted by CBS News. His comments, as I stated before, should stay. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not writing an article about FALN, which has its own article. López Rivera was never charged with any specific act of political violence, let alone killing. It is highly WP:POV and WP:UNDUE to mention the deaths in the very first sentence of his biography. Specific details can be covered in the relevant subsection. The burden to achieve consensus is actually on those seeking to include material. In the case of BLPs, the rule of thumb established by ArbCom is to omit questionable material pending a definite consensus to include it.  Incorrect. What has the most weight on Wikipedia, which you would know if you had actually read WP:WEIGHT, is that which reliable, published sources give weight to. Pascarella was cited in a single news article at the time of the clemency offer, and not in any published source since then that I have seen. Encyclopedia writing means ignoring many things that do not receive significant coverage in reliable sources.  Wikpedia is not a news source. His views are out of proportion to existing reliable, mainstream coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edit on FALN is highly WP:POV. The conviction of OLR was about a conspiracy that included amassing weapons, including the making of bombs. Bombs which killed individuals. The relationship is well sourced. It stays. Do not change the text without reaching a general consensus.Rococo1700 (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead section
I've removed the tallying up of FALN bomb attacks in the lead section as WP:UNDUE – this material is already covered in the article on Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña, and neither article states that López Rivera was involved directly in these attacks. The source used for the phrase "more than 120 bomb attacks" doesn't mention López Rivera at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no shortage of media RSs that discuss the bombings prominently in articles about Rivera - Guardian, CBC, NYT, etc. The lead needs to mentions FALN's tactics as well as their goals, in line with the sources. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article clearly states that López Rivera was an acknowledged leader of the FALN, an organization that perpetrated these violent actions. Leadership implicitly includes accountability for the actions, (often directed, sanctioned or merely to aware of such deeds), committed by those to whom the leader is reported to by. In short, a leader does not have to get their hands dirty. but rather to be merely in the loop for culpability to exist. Hammersbach (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion. The above comment has no bearing on improving the article within the relevant content policies. I've removed the phrase "killing five" from the lead sentence, since it unduly implicates López Rivera in the deaths, while he was never charged with any specific bombings. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See, below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

CGR report
I've removed the published 1999 report from the House Committee on Government Reform as a source, and instead added it to the "Further reading" section. Given the political controversy surrounding López Rivera, I don't believe that a committee of elected representatives is a reliable source here. Such a body does not meet the basic criteria of editorial oversight and fact-checking per WP:SOURCES. Much of the contents of the report pertinent to López Rivera read like pure political propaganda. Even quoting this report directly at length would be WP:UNDUE in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)