Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Oscar Lopez Rivera

Oscar Lopez Rivera

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute
 * 1) Oscar Lopez Rivera


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Oscar López Rivera

Issues to be mediated
For example, the article state that Republicans and law enforcement opposed OLR's release, yet both houses of congress voted by over 88% to oppose the Pardons granted by Clinton, which included a clemency offer to OLR. Second there are those that would consider a conviction for Robbery to be a violent crime, based on the definition of the Department of Justice. It is inappropriate to state that he was not convicted of violence without considering this opinion or fact. Third, political prisoner labels are opinions, not facts, and similar weight should be given to the opinion of the court{s} of law as expressed in their opinions.
 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Everytime I make a well sourced change to the article it is reverted. There have been prior concerns that the article is biased and it seems impossible to make corrections to what are obviously false statements.

There is more to balance in this article but lets get started with these points. Rococo1700 (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm presently taking a chainsaw to unreliable sources whose claims constitute the bulk of the article. -- If broad perception of this subject runs along the lines of the article, then most of what people think they know is warmed-over Cold War propaganda. (During the 1970s, the Soviets were trying to peel away more of the Caribbean after Cuba's Castro proved to be an unreliable asset, with the FALN being its Puerto Rican toe-hold; after the FALN was routed, they had to settle for Grenada...and that didn't last very long.)--Froglich (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)

Consolidation of non-notable FALN convicted into a single article
I recommend interested editors also examine the articles associated with the other convicted FALN members listed here. Most of these persons only barely meet notability requirements (indeed, the lot of them could be consolidated into a single article); and the articles are cut-n-paste duplicates of each other all promulgating the 1970s propaganda line of them being "nationalists" (in reality the FALN was a Stalinist group which sought to transform Puerto Rico into a Soviet client state), with many of them erroneously infoboxing a defunct nationalist party from the 1950s. (I've taken the very rudimentary step of removing said info boxes, and ensuring their participation in the FALN was listed prominent in the lede.)
 * Edwin Cortes
 * Elizam Escobar
 * Ricardo Jimenez
 * Adolfo Matos
 * Dylcia Noemi Pagan
 * Alicia Rodriguez
 * Ida Luz Rodriguez
 * Luis Rosa
 * Carmen Valentin
 * Alberto Rodriguez
 * Alejandrina Torres
 * Juan Enrique Segarra-Palmer
 * Oscar López Rivera

Fishing for suggestions on a good article name. Any ideas?--Froglich (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Proper identification of the FALN
I am not involved with the edit-warring situation on these articles, but here is a word in a statement which one of the parties involved insists on adding to these article and which I am having trouble with accepting as not being POV: What bothers me with the word terrorist is that a person or group may be considered as terrorist by some people, groups and countries, while on the same hand these same people may be considered as heroes and patriots by other people. groups and countries. Therefore the word terrorist, which in my opinion is a POV term, should be removed as required by Wikipedia policy. I ask the mediator in question to request the removal of the term in accordance to policy, thereby permitting our readers to reach their own conclusions. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the term above should not be in the introduction, but should be included as a sourced opinion for example the article of titled The Unrepentant Terrorist in American Spectator, just as the opinion that he is a political prisoner should be included. I have to say I was derided in the past by other authors who now refuse to join in mediation, when I paraphrased the same idea about political prisoners using the same adage (see Talk page for Terrorism in Wikiquote). It is a pity that the other party will not accede to mediation.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am going to suggest that instead of including the statement as such "a Stalinist terrorist group which fought to transform Puerto Rico into a communist state during the 1970s", which as I stated would be POV, is that instead it be written as " considered a Stalinist terrorist group by the United States which fought to transform Puerto Rico into a communist state during the 1970s" with a source and that way it will not seem as a POV statement. The same should apply to the term 'political prisoners'. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll forgive me for intruding, but I would consider the above suggestion to be a bit inaccurate. The problem is that the FALN was a "Marxist-Leninist group" which did commit acts of intentional violence in an attempt "to transform Puerto Rico into a communist state during the 1970s."  This is not just something that "was considered... by the United States".  Having said that, I do agree with the Jarhead that the term "terrorist" is a loaded one that we should consider avoiding. Perhaps we could use another term such as "extremist", or "radical", etc?  Hammersbach (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. KEEP as worded. That the FALN was Marxist-Leninist is, in the vernacular of the (elsewhere) climate debate, "settled", with contrary claims considered "fringe". To remove it would be as much of an affront as removing "Nazi" as a descriptor to various WWII organizations and peoples. Removal represents cowardice and submission to a clamorous vestigial remnant of supporters who are wrong. Likewise, the FALN was an archetypical "terrorist" organization, with its bombing accompanied by press-releases of political demands.--Froglich (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Change. I believe that the suggestion that Rococo1700 made in my talk page: "which some identify as a Marxist-Lennonist terrorist group which fought to transform Puerto Rico into and independent communist state" is fine and not POV. This change does not represent cowardice nor submission to a clamorous vestigial remnant of supporters who are wrong. Remember, the colonists who participated in the Boston Tea Party where called "terrorists" by the British and heroes and patriots by those who advocated independence. Therefore, it all depends on which side those involved defended. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're making an equivalence-fallacy; the American colonists didn't present King George III with lists of demands while serial bombing London. The argument also premises a false equation of US stewardship of Puerto Rico with monarchical despotism.--Froglich (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My concerns with the labels is that the FALN was more concerned with bombing, robbery, and creating fear than ideology. It is sometimes easier to tag foreign groups as terrorist, because the State department makes a list. I would like to see if the DOJ or FBI officially labeled them as terrorist. This is one reason, why I favor making detailed descriptions of the actions, far more than just saying seditious conspiracy of the FALN and OLR, and have them speak for themselves as to whether OLR was a terrorist or not. The reason I favor saying some identify is that can cite that opinion. We could use for some, the term the majority of Americans as expressed through their elected representatives, since the House and Senate resolutions on the clemency specifically called the FALN a terrorist organization.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that "terrorist" only became a euphemism replacing more accurate but politically inconvenient labels in the wake of 9/11; e.g., describing Al Qaeda as "terrorist" rather Islamist, etc. While popular culture often described the various Soviet-orchestrated front-groups of the 1970s as terrorist (e.g., the German Red Army Faction), official institutions typically didn't employ such terminology. That said, the word "terrorist" should be retained because of its connotations to violence -- and the FALN was a quintessentially terrorist violent group which made demands accompanied by bombings.--Froglich (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note also that the founders of the FALN were born in the 1930s and 40s -- they were not stupid, myopic teenagers who didn't know what they were doing; they were communists who took after Fidel Castro; and the FALN proceeded upon the same lines as other Soviet-orchestrated overthrow groups.--Froglich (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, at least in my mind, I just want to make sure that everyone understands that there are two different points in the description being discussed:


 * 1) The FALN was a Marxist-Leninist group which sought to turn Puerto Rico into a communist state. This was, incontrovertibly, a stated goal of theirs.


 * 2) The sticky issue of whether or not the FALN was, indisputably, a terrorist organization based upon the violent methods they chose to employ in pursuit of their goals. This is a label/definition being applied by others.

These two points are separate and distinct and should be treated accordingly. As such, IMHO, and only for example, the phrases: a) "a Marxist-Leninist organization considered by some to be a terrorist group" or b) "a Marxist-Leninist organization and terrorist group" capture the distinction, while the phrase: c) "considered by some to be a Marxist-Leninist terrorist organization" does not. That's what I was attempting to state above in my previous comment but apparently wasn't as clear as I could have been.  Hammersbach (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) "Considered by some" verbiage would be doubt-mongering; and so I'd oppose such inclusion. 2) The FALN's bombing campaign in conjunction with publicized lists of demands renders it an archetypical terrorist organization under the most basic definition of the term:--Froglich (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "noun ...the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal -- Merriam-Webster"


 * We are talking about the usage here in "Wikipedia", the encyclopedia. Not about what "we" personally believe. We in Wikipedia, out of respect owe ourselves to all the readers of the world, not to those who believe in what "we" personally believe. That is why our policy states that "we" must be unbiased and neutral in our articles. I am not saying that the "FALN" was not a terrorist organization, what I am saying is that certain terms such as "terrorists" are not to be used because they are POV depending on the point of view of our readers. Now, if we are to add the term then we must also provide the reader with an answer as to who or whom designated the "FALN" a terrorist organization with an unbiased verifiable reliable source. That is all. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell me what criteria are necessary for any group to objectively qualify for the "terrorist" label.--Froglich (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple, for an example take a look at the article of Al-Qaeda, where the article states the following: "It has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council, NATO, the European Union, the United States, Russia, India and various other countries." Tony the Marine (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so simple. The designation you are suggesting only existed after passage of amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1997 and executive order 13224 in 2001 in the United States and a resolution of the United Nations in 1999. Both were done as a result of Al-Qaeda attacks. As FALN only operated domestically these are the only 2 that might apply. FALN, which never had more than 36 members according to law enforcement was defunct by the early 1980's and therefore could not have received these designations. Also to receive the U.S. designation, one of the requirements is that the organization be "foreign" which FALN was not.


 * It is clear that FALN was always considered a terrorist organization by reliable sources including, but not limited to:


 * The New York Times"F.A.L.N. PUERTO RICAN TERRORISTS""F.A.L.N., a terrorist organization"


 * The New York Daily News"Tiny group of terrorists bent on Puerto Rican independence"


 * The Chicago Sun Times"the now-disbanded terrorist group"


 * The Chicago Tribune"clemency for terrorists FALN members were linked to U.S. bombings"


 * The Washington Post "Puerto Rican terrorist group, FALN"


 * The Los Angeles Times "the Puerto Rican terrorist group"


 * and reference sources:


 * The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism


 * and was treated as a terrorist organization by the FBI and handled by its counterterrorism division. My question is what reliable source has ever argued that it wasn't a terrorist organization?


 * The alternative description advanced by some, that FALN was a "paramilitary organization that, through direct action, advocated complete independence for Puerto Rico" is not found anywhere in any reliable sources that I could find and is misleading. That they were a paramilitary organization suggests a size and proficiency that they clearly lacked. They created bombs using tupperware containers that as often as not failed to go off. Their supposed bomb expert, William Morales, blew himself up trying to make a pipe bomb in 1978. Their explosive devices had to be detonated by members on site and members were seen running away from the Fraunces Tavern bombing, their most famous attack.  A single bust in 1980 crippled the organization. "Through direct action advocated complete independence for Puerto Rico" does not describe FALN's activity. They were not community organizers. They didn't lobby or publish pamphlets; they randomly blew up people and property to draw attention to their cause. They "advocated" exclusively through explosive devices.


 * This vagueness in describing FALN bolsters the position that its members were all "political prisoners" imprisoned for their political beliefs rather than the bomb making materials in their possession at the time of their arrest. Given this endless list of secondary sources who call FALN a terrorist organization, why are we backing away from it?Eudemis (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Eudemis. How many bombs does one have to explode in civilian worksites? How many civilians does one have to anonymously kill before one is labeled a terrorist? OLR has an article, he is known to us because he was the leader of an organization that set off bombs among the civilian population. The Weatherman, some of whom were convicted for helping the FALN, are considered as terrorists by wikipedia. George Metesky who set off thirty bombs, is considered a terrorist. What, a hundred is not enough? I think all the convicted FALN members should be placed in the Category:Terrorism in United States, just as the weatherman are. I am perfectly OK with editors introducing the opinions of some that OLR was somehow not a terrorist, but he was convicted of a conspiracy that in todays legal system would fit the description of terrorism.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, these people (the FALN 12) are notable only because they are terrorists.--Froglich (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely sure, but I would have to agree that they should be listed as terrorists. Neosiber (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am troubled by the process. Not by the discussion occurring here, but the parties who have been resistant to allowing modification of the article refuse to join mediation. The user Tony the Marine has participated in a cogent fashion, but even if we come to an agreement here that the term terrorist applies, we have editors that revert this application repeatedly. I have added the terrorism wikiproject banner to talk page, and they remove it. I have added the category of Terrorism in the United States and they remove it. We can all continue to agree on this page, but what can we do when the other party does not agree to mediation, and continues to impose their biases on the article? Rococo1700 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As there are at least two involved editors whose sum total of contributions is courtesy of Leonid Brezhnev's press office, I say it's time to get administration involved to hand out topic bans.--Froglich (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with Froglich, I looked through several related articles on FALN and there are certain editors who have consistently tried to paint the FALN and it's members in a positive light. They should be topic banned. Neosiber (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * With regards to Sarason's screed below: baloney. The debate above highlights that FALN, of which OLR was a leader, was a terrorist organization, and Sarason claims I am in error in claiming that he was violent. Wow! is there some disconnect here? Rather than argue that he won, and I pointedly disputed with the editor wikishagnik about his use of sources, and his logic and definitions (what is and what isn't a primary source) is a parole decision a court document? Is a report produced by congress, a primary source? and I am willing to discuss it with Sarason. A report by the US Congress, taking depositions from law enforcement, from the representative of the Puerto Rican People, all agree that OLR was violent. It is also a fact that you can arrive at by myriad ways. Again let me quote the Representative of the Puerto Rican People in the US congress speaking about those offered clemency, including OLR:

they carried out over 100 major armed attacks in the mainland and in Puerto Rico with the purpose of imposing independence for the island by means of violence, threats and terror.

Now Sarason: I ask again, what is your point? Also what do you say to the other editors above?Rococo1700 (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Again I think the article of OLR should be rewritten without the input of Sarason and Jmundo unless they participate in a mediated solution.In addition, is the section below open for people to make comments? It sounds like Sarason is saying "I do not want to say anything, but before I go, let me make a speech." Rococo1700 (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Again Mercy11 argues but does not want to argue. My recommendation is that the article be rewritten from scratch. And if Mercy11 or Sarason think I view this as turning down my request or that somehow the points that all those authors who did join mediation are wrong, they are deeply in error.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Rococo1700 (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Rococo1700 (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Neosiber (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. Froglich (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. NickCT (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Disagree Sarason (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC) for the reason stated below:


 * Sunray, I do appreciate (and thank you) for your invitation to join the mediation re Oscar Lopez Rivera. I have not joined it for a valid and ongoing reason. This mediation was opened by an editor who has repeatedly filed DRs with respect to Oscar Lopez Rivera -- and when the DR did not go his way, Rococo simply ignored it and continued to edit as he saw fit, in opposition to the results of his own DR. Here is an example, taken from the first DR. When Rococo saw that the DR was not "going his way," he never bothered to participate further, even while making hundreds of edits in Wikipedia during that same period of time. Please note the volunteer's advice:


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


 * After eight days with no response from Rococo1700 (from April 12 until April 20), the DR was then Closed as stale. This was the DR that Rococo1700 himself filed, and this was the result.


 * The penultimate sentence in the mediator's final opinion was especially significant. It found all of Rococo's government reports to be a PRIMARY SOURCE:


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


 * Shortly after this DR, Rococo proceeded to insert precisely the Primary Source material that he was advised not to include. When that material was reverted, Rococo filed yet another DR that again did not "go his way." It was closed as stale after 11 days, when no volunteer chose to consider the case.


 * Subsequently, the Oscar Lopez Rivera page was temporarily blocked in order to allow for some type of editorial consensus to build. Rococo tried to circumvent this block by requesting an administrator to insert his Primary Source material (during the block) -- a request which was firmly denied.


 * Now Rococo has opened a mediation page with a one-sided retinue of editors (who have been editing Oscar Lopez Rivera for just a few weeks - a strong sign of recent "recruitment.") However, given the history of Rococo repeatedly seeking his (and only his) editing objectives, and ignoring the results of his own DRs, it is evident to me that Rococo is gaming the system -- and will ignore the result of this very mediation, which he himself opened, if it doesn't concur with his agenda.


 * For this reason I have expressed my intent to edit fairly, with citations and sources, and by consensus. It is a better and more constructive use of my editing time, than participating in a mediation process which (as evidenced by Rococo's prior DRs, and his disregard of those DRs) is not being conducted in good faith.


 * Sunray (and/or any other mediator), I invite you to review the talk page of Oscar Lopez Rivera and to review these two prior DRs, HERE and HERE, so that you can reach your own independent judgment about all this. The editing history speaks for itself. Thank you again for your kind invitation regarding the mediation. Sarason (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Disagree Mercy11 (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)  -  for the reasons given below:
 * (User:Sunray: Perhaps you missed it, but I responded, almost 2 weeks ago on 13:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC) HERE, to your request for a response on this issue, but given this second request from you, here is my response again, with further comments)
 * Premature Filing. This filing suffers from being premature: The article's talk page is the place to discuss these things and to accept the consensus achieved there. Significant progress was being made a the article's Talk page with Rococo, but he seems frustrated. Perhaps he perceives a slow pace of adoption of his points, but that is the nature of a consensus process - we have to wait until others have been given a fair chance to make their opinion know.
 * Pointy. The filing editor, Rococo, shows lack of collegiality - he has filed 2 similar requests for intervention, via his 2 DR/N, but then failed to adhere to the outcome of those 2 impartial third-party volunteers.
 * Meritless. While I always welcome rational Mediation discussions, I am busy in real life to make time for a mediation that is meritless and ad nauseum: I frankly have no time to go in circles again with Rococo to argue -again- Rococo's ad nauseum arguments, arguments that have been opposed by many editors as well as DN/R volunteers. I really have no time for an editor who relentlessly wants to go against the consensus and just wants to have "his way or the highway", even to the point of canvassing recluits for his political POV inclinations. Consensus has been established several times and when Rococo didn't like the results he went to DR/N, and when they ruled against him there (twice) also, he now comes to Mediation for more of the same old, same old. You cannot file an appeal when your case has no merit. Rococo doesn't listen to anyone. He doesn't agree with Wikipedia policies, he wants to use Wikipedia to advertise his POV, and he wants to have his way.
 * WP:BLP. Rococo brings a novel, but personal, POV to this article. He is bent on accusing the WP:BLP subject of the article with his own conspiracy theories and his own political ideas. His American ultra-nationalist indoctrination obfuscates his ability to edit the article in a fair fashion, which has lead him into conflicts with numerous editors.
 * WP:NPOV. Rococo doesn't know what he wants, and at the same time wants it all, and even contradicts himself. His filing above demonstrates it: He first claims to "make a well sourced changes to the article, it is reverted" (impossible when you consider his 100s of edits to his credit), and claims "congress voted by over 88% to oppose the Pardons granted by Clinton" (in violation of WP:V), claims that OLR is a violent criminal (a violation of WP:SYNT), claims "political prisoner labels are opinions, not facts," (a violation of WP:NPOV). Against all of this, he pushes to label OLR a "terrorist" when no court of law ever convicted him of terrorism and no valid independent unbiased international organization ever listed him as such (again, WP:V). Still unhappy with his unsourced accussations, Rococo wants to retry OLR in Rococo's own personal court of law and adds "There is more to balance in this article but lets get started with these points."
 * More Premature additions. This filing is further premature in that "Additional issues (added by other parties) - "Consolidation of non-notable FALN convicted into a single article" and "Proper identification of the FALN" have not met the prerequisite of the Mediation Committee in that matters to be mediated must have been extensively discussed already in the article's talk page first.
 * Froglich made an excellent suggestion above - a topic ban. Yes, a topic ban against Rococo would solve this problem. As for Rococo's two allies, Neosiber and Froglich, we should give them more time and see how relentlessly they too want to press anti-Communist idelogies. At Wikipedia we don't edit based on our own democratic political ideologies, and we don't bash other editors because they seek to be politically neutral - whether democratic or communist. Editors are not expected to be politically neutral, but they are espected to edit politically neutral - at least in the sum total.


 * Again, thanks for the invitattion but this time it would not be an appropriate use of my time. Mercy11 (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * First, given communism's bloodbath across the 20th century, it is no longer fitting to extend to its adherents (under whatever improved label they now slink) any greater consideration than is given to contemporary neo-Nazis (and "anticommunist" carries every bit as much opprobrium as "anti-Nazi", which is to say none). Secondly, blatant nonsense is not rendered kosher by neutral presentation or specious sourcing. --Froglich (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. This is not a dispute that is appropriate to mediation. If there are conduct issues, they should be taken to WP:AN or to arbitration. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)