Jump to content

Talk:Filiberto Ojeda Ríos/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Death

Editors, please, let's try to put only confirmed info. As of right now, the FBI still hasn't confirmed his death, but the government of Puerto Rico has.

Let's keep in mind NPOV. We can't call this an assasination. I prefer the term "apparent" o "alelged" assasination. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 03:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It was confirmed by official sources to the Police of Puerto Rico that Ojeda Rios was dead (See endi.com). The time of death was around 5:00p.

A further report here: [1]. Audio at the top of the page. It's an account by Juan-Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua, Puerto Rican "political analyst and radio host", "a Harvard-educated attorney and independent political analyst in Puerto Rico" [2] He seems to have been quoted by the Washington Post as an independent commentator [3]. The article should include his account (attributed, obviously) Mr. Jones 09:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

In absentia

The article says Ojeda Ríos was convicted in absentia. I thought such trials were unconstitutional in the US, but apparently I was mistaken. Can anyone shed light on this issue? Thanks. Wmahan. 00:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the laws drawn up to combat organised crime in the 1920s, for instance, were used against Osama bin Laden in 1998 to convict him in abstentia. That's one of the first uses of the term "Al Quaeda" to refer to an organisation, probably because they needed evidence of a organisation to secure a conviction. Mr. Jones 09:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Why would they be unconstitional? The Constitution requires that the defendant have notice of his arrest and trial; if he thereafter flees, his loss of his rights to cross-examination accusers, etc. are lost by his own misdeed. These trials are not unconstitutional. That said, many states, in the interest of fairness, grant an automatic retrial upon arrest of one convicted in absentia. Xoloz 03:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting. I was thinking of the Sixth Amendment right to confront one's accusers. I guess if he fled during the US trial (which I didn't see mentioned in the article), that would explain why this was an unusual case. Thanks. Wmahan. 05:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

On this talk page below, the FBI statement reads, "While free on bond awaiting trial on these original charges, Ojeda-Rios fled and became a fugitive from justice. In his absence, Ojeda-Rios was convicted and sentenced to 55 years in prison." I was working on that assumption. Not allowing an imprisoned or (if bailed) appearing defendant to attend his own trial would be grossly unconstitutional. Defendants, however, flee often enough, so trials in absentia are not uncommon. Xoloz 09:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I created the article in absentia based on my limited knowledge of the subject. Wmahan. 06:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Do not tolerate vandalism on this page. Questions of his political beliefs and methods must be handled with care.......keep an eye on neutral point of view. Also, let's try to provide links in the article.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral point of view is one thing, putting this story into proper perspective is another. The way this article is written implies that the people of Puerto Rico viewed Ojeda Rios with fondness as a folk hero. That is far, far from the truth, and the fact that only a very, very small fraction of the people have protested shows this. The media has made this issue much bigger than it is. The reality is that he was a famous criminal, but a criminal nonetheless. The other reality is that the vast, vast majority of Puertoricans believe that the island is much better off without people like Ojeda Rios on the loose.--Flybd5 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Scene

Filiberto Ojeda Rios was shot by two bullets, one on the right clavicle and other in the back, while in a shootout with the FBI. He probably died of an hemorrhage.

At the time of death, the revolutionary leader and a terrorist to others, had on a bulletproof vest, and was dressed on camouflaged pants and hat, said the government officials.

Ojeda Rios body was found lying face down, just in front of the door of the rural residence where he was hiding. At his right side, a pistol was found by the forensic investigators. More than 20 bullet casings where found at the crime scene, including some AR-15 shells.

The investigators observed two bullet holes that came from the outside of the residence, both to the side of the main entrance door. Only on the back of the residence another bullet hole was found, this one facing to the outside.

It has been told that FBI agents are still on the scene of the events investigating a series of documents that where left burning on cement wall that simulates a [fogón].

Local authorities have been aloud inside the residence after more than 22 hours of the beginning of this operative. "More than enough time to contaminate or arrange the crime scene", said Ojeda's followers.

The FBI claims that it was after one of there agents got shot that they open fire against the 72 year old Ojeda. He was with his wife at the time. After that a perimeter was established by the local police, and no person was allowed to enter the area. Not by land or air. Attempts of a local news crew of getting closer with a chopper were unsuccessful after being threaten that they were trespassing federal airspace and they will be handle with deadly force if needed.

During the operative to capture Ojeda, his wife was arrested an a federal agent received a wound to the stomach, says the FBI. Elma Beatriz Rosado, Ojeda's widow, was released from federal custody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomaniac (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As a Puertorrican, I am astonished on how slanted and one-sided this article is. First of all, Filiberto Ojeda Rios was a terrorist. Second of all, "El grito de Lares" is not an important date for me or the majorty of Puertorricans. Third, the pro-independence party in Puerto Rico did not even receive enough votes to maintain it's political identity. Please do not "throw" all Puertorricans in a slanted, ridiculous article that mis-represents the views of the majority.

  • Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy. I do not find this article to be one-sided. However, you seem to point out POLITICAL themes in the article. The fact that the independence party did not receive votes to maintain their identity is irrelevant in this article. I am a Puerto Rican and I do cosider the grito de lares to be importante, even though I do not support independnce for the island. However, this article deals with the available information, so, do you expect this article to name him a terrorist and claim no repercutions happened after his death when there are media images of the thousands of people which were at his funeral?<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but who appointed you the arbiter of what is or isn't irrelevant to this story? The fact that Ojeda supported a cause which only draws less than 4% of the vote in elections or referendums IS relevant, because it puts it into perspective by pointing that he was allegedly fighting for a cause that few people on this island defend or support. The historical inability of the political party that represented the alleged ideal Filiberto was fighting for to draw support from the general population IS relevant, as it shows that the slanted viewpoint you are trying to present is not representative of the majority of Puertoricans. You have no right, in ANY venue, to present the information of the death of this terrorist in any other way, if you indeed claim to want to present it in a neutral point of view. --Flybd5 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually in recent polls the majority of Puerto Ricans said they thought memembers of the Independence Party were more trust-worthy than the Statehood or Commonwealth parties. Why is that? Food for thought. Fact is, in the last plebicite, both Statehood and Commonwealth lost to "None of the Above" which won a majority. More food for thought. Lastly, lack of support for the Nationalist Party, is not the same as lack of support for Nationalism, and take in to consideration that many Nationalists don't believe any plebicite that ultimately is subject to the US Congress decision and not the people's isn't democratic or legitamate, so what's the point of voting in it anyway. Of course, I'm taking this side in response to harline position of our friend here. Sociological data, like voting patterns, polls, and so on and their implications are up for debate, always, so long as soudn theories can explain them. It all depneds on how you look at them and present them. I could say that George W. Bush won half of the vote, or I could say that 75% of the eligable populace didn't even vote for him. Half empty, half full. May I suggest that perhaps a "neutral" view may be less relavant as to presenting different sides and interpritations.--128.59.143.41 05:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually in recent polls the majority of Puerto Ricans said they thought memembers of the Independence Party were more trust-worthy than the Statehood or Commonwealth parties.--- More "trustworthy? Trustworthy to do what? This is BS. Who took the poll, Claridad? Please. Spare me. As to the "None of the above." you should also note that independence lost too, remember? Independentistas, nacionalistas, whatever you want to call them, in the long run they remain as irrelevant as Pedro Rosselló. The fact that independentistas would risk disenfrachising their own party to vote their TRUE conscience on what's right for Puerto Rico and send Rosselló packing with a "¡No te vistas, que no vas!" statement speaks for itself. --Flybd5 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Let me try this again, you think that the 4% in an election is so definative. Would it be NPOV for me to say the following: "The US military swears alliangce George W Bush as Commander-in-Chief, despite the fact that over 75% of the elegible voting populace did not vote for him."--24.152.251.248 07:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Execution of the Federal arrest warrant

Luis S. Fraticelli, Special Agent in Charge, San Juan Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI, is providing the following information regarding the attempted capture of Filiberto Ojeda-Rios (Ojeda-Rios):

On August 30 , 1985 , a federal grand jury indicted Ojeda-Rios, the proclaimed leader of the Ejercito Popular Boricua-Macheteros. Ojeda-Rios and several other members of Los Macheteros were indicted for robbery and transportation of stolen money stemming from the September 12 , 1983 robbery of approximately $7 million from Wells Fargo Armored Services Corporation , in West Hartford, Connecticut .

While free on bond awaiting trial on these original charges, Ojeda-Rios fled and became a fugitive from justice. In his absence, Ojeda-Rios was convicted and sentenced to 55 years in prison.

On September 25 , 1990 , an arrest warrant was issued by the United States District Court of Connecticut charging Ojeda-Rios with having violated Title 18, United States Code (USC), Section 3148 (Bond Default).

On September 20 , 2005 , the FBI developed information regarding the whereabouts of Ojeda-Rios. On that same day, the FBI began conducting surveillance and a tactical operation in the Hormigueros area of Puerto Rico in an effort to confirm the exact whereabouts of Ojeda-Rios. Subsequently, it was determined that Ojeda-Rios was present at a Hormigueros residence/farm house.

On September 23 , 2005 , FBI agents were conducting surveillance of the Hormigueros farm house when it was determined that their presence had been detected. Because the operation potentially had been compromised, the FBI agents decided to go ahead and execute the warrant for the arrest of Ojeda-Rios. As the FBI agents approached the front of the farm house at approximately 4:28 p.m., Ojeda-Rios opened the front door to the residence and opened fire on the FBI agents. As a result, one FBI agent was shot and severely wounded. Two other FBI agents were shot, although they were not wounded because of their protective equipment.

In response to the gunfire from Ojeda-Rios, the FBI returned fire and established a defensive perimeter in order to contain the environment.

At three separate points in time, gunfire was fired at the FBI agents from the direction of the residence. Because of the ongoing gunfire, FBI decided not to enter the residence. The FBI also was aware that Ojeda-Rios and Los Macheteros both have a history of possessing explosives. For safety reasons, the FBI then requested additional agents, police dogs, and specialized equipment, as well as an FBI tactical team based in the United States.

At one point in the encounter, Ojeda-Rios' wife, Elma Beatriz Rosado Barbosa, safely exited the residence. She was not injured by gunfire at any point in time. Although she was initially detained, she has been released from federal custody.

On September 24 , 2005 , an FBI tactical team from the United States entered the residence and discovered that Ojeda-Rios was deceased. So far, one weapon has been discovered inside of the residence. The investigation is on-going. [4]

  • I removed the section on the Federal Arrest Warrant. Resons for this were:
  1. It is redundant; the information on that section was already in the section of Crime Scene (which by the way, will be renamed.....Crime Scene goes against the neutral point of view policy..it will be renamed Scene of the Operation).
  2. Some parts of it were speculation.
  3. The picture of the federal agent with the word 'Asesino..(assasin) in it is a serious violation of NPOV. It was removed.

Vandalisms to this article will not be tolerated.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 17:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

'found him deceased'...heh. Some of these points have already been found to be incorrect. He began shooting at the FBI after they had initially opened fire on him. Rios was killed by a single bullet to the neck from a sniper. The FBI then refused to enter the premises for 12 hours as the man bled to death.

Yes, indeed, found him deceased is quite correct. He had the opportunity to come out and surrender, and did not. He began shooting instead and found himself the target of a barrage of lead. No one in their right mind would have gone into that house knowing full well that this was a dangerous terrorist who could have very well wired the house with explosives in order to go out in a blaze of fury. There was more than enough evidence and history to support this scenario. Those FBI agents are also sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers. Many of them are proud Puertoricans, who like the vast majority of us believe that people who want to further their political interests through the merits of explosives rather than the merits of democracry should be squashed. I for one am glad to see this common criminal six feet under ground. He lived by the sword and died by the sword, that was his choice, now let him enjoy the consequences of rotting for all eternity...

"who like the vast majority of us believe that people who want to further their political interests through the merits of explosives rather than the merits of democracry should be squashed." Yeah how's that going? Did it work when the FBI came and assasinated all the others int eh islands history? How about the Ponce Massacre? What "democracy" are you talking about? The one that subjects Puerto Ricans to the US congress denies Puerto Ricans the vote in the body of "representatives"? That drafts them in wars which they didn't pick? Where they can't vote for the adminstration who makes the policies? You are right, most Puerto Ricans do respect democracy, and the nationalists have taken their pleas to the Supreme Court, the US Congress and the United Nations (who ruled in thier favor), but it doesn't seem to me the US gov't has any respect for any of that. Obviously, I don't agree with the FALN, becasue I haven't chosen that path myself, but statements that are so one-side as to damn them as villians are stupid. Any conflict has at least two sides, and at least two parties fighting. It was after the FBI violence that killed this man. The FBI wasn't being too democratic about achieving thier goals.--128.59.143.41 05:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's working just fine, thank you. Democracy has no place for explosives, and those who use them can only expect that they will be used against them to prevent them from thinking that such actions will advance their goals. Hysterical people who think that just because they're not getting their way, they are entitled to throw tantrums and use whatever means are necessary to achieve their goals are wrong, period. As to denying votes, no one is denying ANY Puerto Ricans anything. The fact is very simple -- Puertoricans agreed, and so did Congress, to be a commonwealth. That means Puertorican residents don't pay federal taxes, and we don't get votes in Congress or the Senate. We are not denied the right to vote for president, there simply are no federal presidential elections held outside the 50 states and incorporated territories. It's that simple, period. And the fact remains that more than 50% of the voters in Puerto Rico have voted again and again and again to keep it that way. As far as I am concerned, anyone who mindlessly kills a father of two children on their birthday to make a political statement does not deserve any mercy, period. Filiberto Ojeda deserves to be where he is right this very minute, rotting away six feet underground. I'm just sorry it wasn't done earlier. --Flybd5 01:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • "Democracy has no place for explosives." Unless of course the draft you to be in war, right? "Puertoricans agreed, and so did Congress, to be a commonwealth" United Nations clearly states any vote with another nation occuping it with military forces is illegitamte and therefor null and void, hence why Puerto Rico is back on the colony list. How could you in good conscience call this a legitamate election? Fact is, the US does not respect international law, until it benifits them, in 1989 the UN held a vote to end colonialism by 2000. The vote, 189 to 1. Not even the Israel backed the US on this one. The next issue is that Puerto Ricans did not make the ballot, the US Congress did. Number two why it isn't a legitamate expression of popular mandate. It's like saying, "you free to choose whatever you want, so long as they are one of the options I let you choose from." That is not democratic. "Hysterical people who think that just because they're not getting their way, they are entitled to throw tantrums and use whatever means are necessary to achieve their goals are wrong, period." Like what, "no taxation without represenatation?" Come on now, Nationalists have tried arguing that the Treaty of Paris was against the US 13th amendement inside the US system, tried and suceed in getting the UN to say the US was in non-compliance with the Declaration of Human rights. You don't think if an idealogical segment has exhausted national and international methods of change, it would not be logical for them to consider violent resistance? I'm not saying to agree with it, but be consistant, if it was OK for the American revolutionaries, who were not more numerous than American loyalist by the way, then it's ok for any other group who has reached the same conclusion. Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, any government that purposefully waits until the aniversry of the most important day of Puerto Rican strugle for independence, and without contacting the local government, to assassinate a man is doing so only to remind a nation of thier lowly status. Tasteless. Just because someone is a criminal, doesn't mean you have to out do him.--24.152.251.248 07:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • "Unless of course the draft you to be in war, right?" That is what the English language refers to as a red herring. The Commonwealth was not formed under threat of occupation. That's a product of an overactive imagination. The simple fact is that 97% of Puertoricans want nothing to do with independence. Period. You need to learn to deal with that. As to the date Ojeda was killed, the terrorist coward chose that date himself, by words and deeds, and now he's rotting for his mistake. Good riddance. I'd like to see you try to explain your bizarre arguments to the children of the people he murdered.--Flybd5 04:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

It seems very soon after his death to be protecting this article. I hope it will only be for a few hours not a few days, SqueakBox 03:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

A temp. protection was put into effect due to all the vandlism and POV posted. The article became a total mess, out of control. It will be unprotected soon, however we must let the passions cool down a bit. We shouldn't dishonor this person's memory with a disorganized article unworthy of wikipedia standards. Tony the Marine 17:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think given he only died 4 days ago, and that noone requested that this article be protected, that it should be unprotected asap to allow necessary editing while the interest in him remains, and there are good editors frustrated at not being able to edit, because of one or possibly more vandals. The protection overnight should have frightened the baddies off. I have put a request to this effect at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection, SqueakBox 17:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody protected this at around 0300 UTC today "for cooling off" and I tagged it, but forgot to check back. There was a reminder on WP:RFPP so I've come back and unprotected. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If vandals under the guise of editors are not going to allow other documented and properly footnoted viewpoints to be expressed here because they don't want people to know the truth about this terrorist, then it's time to ask for this article to be deleted. flybd5 15 Oct 2005

Minor Edits Needed

I feel partly responsible for the vandalism that has been going on. I posted a link to the Filiberto Ojeda Rios page on a comment to a blog post, here's a link to the blog:

http://www.endi.com/blogs/?p=33

My username on this blog is JULIOEM, my comment is dated Septiembre 26th, 2005 at 4:16 pm

It is a reputable blog, established by the Director of "El Nuevo Dia". However, spirits are high right now in Puerto Rico and it might be best to keep Ojeda's page locked for a few days.

I took the time to look over the Preface and Bigraphy sections to Ojeda's page and found some minor corrections that should be made:

Preface section:

"His death has caused mourning and protests among the Puerto Rican Independence movement. [1]"

Inproper link format "[1]" and it links to an ouside news source that is not proper to the context of the Preface.

Recommend deletion of link.

Biography section:

second paragraph:

General Intelligence Directorate (GDI) links to Wikepedia "edit this page" tab of "General Intelligence Directorate (GDI) instead of article tab.

Recommend link be changed to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Intelligence_Directorate

third paragraph:

In 1967 he founded and led the very first of Puerto Rico's new militant political groups, the Armed Revolutionary Independence Movement (MIRA).

The link to "Armed Revolutionary Independence Movement (MIRA)" links to the "edit this page" tab for this Wikipedia entry and the following message:

"Wikipedia does not yet have a page called Armed Revolutionary Independence Movement"

Recommend this link be deleted.

He subsequently skipped bail and moved to New York, organizing the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN)

Same problem as the (MIRA) link, links to edit tab of a page wikepedia does not yet have

Recommend this link be deleted.

Fourth Paragraph:

In 1976, Ojeda Ríos renamed the FALN to the Boricua Popular Army —or Ejército Popular Boricua

The link to "Ejercito Popular Boricua" links to the edit tab of a page wikepedia does not have yet, however, the link to "Boricua Popular Army" will work here.

Recomend link to "Ejercito Popular Boricua" be changed to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boricua_Popular_Army

I'll continue proof reading the article tomorrow and include my findings with corrections.

Thanks in advance

JULIO 04:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Charges against him

This is not neutrally stated. "he was involved in the efforts of the revolutionary Cuba intelligence in that city to promote independent sentiment in that city, and after that, he came back to Puerto Rico and founded what was known as the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros, the clandestine sector of the nationalist movement in Puerto Rico that was responsible, as you know, for several successful attacks, including the blowing up of several airplanes in the military base in San Juan for $45 million, and later for the assault of a truck, a brinks truck in Hartford, Connecticut, also successful, again, in the course of independence.

He was tried for those events in a federal court in Puerto Rico, and he was absolved unanimously by a Puerto Rican jury. I had the chance of interviewing him on television that day, and we remained friends from that day on. And he obviously was very proud of the fact that the Puerto Rican jury had absolved him of all crimes and had decided -- and this is the official decision of the jury -- that he had acted in legitimate defense against the forces of the United States." So charges were brought, but many of them were dropped. That is highly significant. Mr. Jones 09:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ultra-minority?

I have a trouble with the POV of this statement. While I'm not saying it is untrue, what is an example of not an "ultra-minority" group? Must we go on every wikipedia page and label all loby groups "ultra-minority"? What are the particulars of ultra-minority? In other words when do you become an ultra-minority? Is when you are less than 5%? Or is it numerical, like less than 10,000? I mean, I think while technically correct, it sounds completely politically charged. Could I say that the the wealthy in the US are an ultra-minority, or the media is an an ultra-minority, or those serving in the US armed forces are an ultra-minority? I'm just asking for some clarification.--128.59.143.41 06:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, it is false to say that only pro-Independence people viewed his death in mourning. You can argue it was small, but it was clear that many different segments of the populace viewed this as an outrage, not just one.--128.59.143.41 06:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I added the statement that Los Macheteros is an ultra-minority organization. Less than a dozen members are known and none of the operations for which they have allegedly claimed responsibility required any more than a few people to achieve. There are plenty of clowns that talk about Los Macheteros as if they were related to the organization, but the fact remains that it has never been proven to contain more than a handful of actual operatives. --Flybd5 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"which historically has been shown to represent some 4% of the total electorate, have called the operation a "political assassination"." Wrong again, "historically" the number have fluctuated greatly. The Nationalists in the 30s, and 40s were much larger in percentage. The main reason why the numbers were somewhat deflated was because the Nationalist Party used the Natioal flag as their party flag, which made it easy for many of the populace who were illiterate at the time. However, on the eve of the elction a law was quickly pased to say that the Nationalist Party was not allowed to use that falg. Radio stations, who were mostly owned by segments not in favor of independence, refused them any airtime to annouce the change in party flags. If you want to say that in "recent history", fine, but "historically" is too large, and then that statement is wrong, because the Nationalists have had periods with much higher numbers than 4%.--128.59.143.41 06:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You'll have to do better than that to contend that the independence movement has ever amounted to more than 3-4% of the population. They didn't even achieve the 3% total this past election and damn near were disenfranchised as a political party. --Flybd5 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Friend, you are summing up over 100 years of history based on what? The latter half of the 20th century? Plently of parties in the first half supported eventual independence. In fact, Munoz Marin and his party originally supported indepence, after it was economically viable.--24.152.251.248 06:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • None of this points to any facts supporting an assertion that more than 3-4% of the total population has supported the "nationalists" or an independence movement. And as you said, Muñoz Marín originally supported independence. So do most of the Che-wannabes at the UPR.--Flybd5 04:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wells Fargo Money

Can we please have a citation on the money going to fund the independece moevement and Cuba? It should also be mentioned they used the funds to buy toys for inner-city children:

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=%22wells+fargo%22+macheteros+toys+children&btnG=Google+Search

128.59.143.41 (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • That the money went to Cuba (at least $2 million of it) has been documented in several sources, in great detail. One of them, in Spanish, makes for highly interesting reading --Flybd5 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC):
 http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/wells-fargo.htm

El 27 de septiembre de 1983, Segarra manejó una casa rodante Superior Motor Home de 1973 con paredes dobles, piso falso y un compartimiento capáz de ocultar a dos personas, trasladando a Gerena y dos millones de dólares a la Embajada cubana en México. Ojeda, apodado "El G-2 cubano" por ser un agente de inteligencia de Cuba desde 1961, respondía servilmente a los intereses de Fidel Castro. El vehículo fue manejado por Juan Segarra, quien volvió a salir de México con la casa rodante el 12 de octubre de 1983, según demuestran los records de Inmigración. Ese día Segarra hizo una llamada con cargo revertido a su residencia desde un teléfono público de la ciudad fronteriza de Laredo, Texas.

Miscellaneous comments on poor writing

I deleted a link to an obituary written by The Economist, only because the link leads to a page that didn't seem to contain a link to the article. The obituary is real, it's premium content at The Economist's own Web site. The edit quoted The Economist as saying Ojeda was described in his adolescence as having "an engaging degree of intelligence". I don't know what was actually written in that obituary, but in English "engaging degree" is nonsense. You can say "high degree of intelligence" or "engaging intelligence". This example of moronic prose is typical of adulatory writing about Quixotic revolutionaries like Ojeda Rios. I have just cleaned up other examples in the same editing session, like "he joined a band ... he performed" [on two instruments] "on stage". The "on stage" — he was a professional musician in an established local band! Yeah on stage! Notice that this section of the article (his prerevolutionary years) has a huge gap — 25 years — between age 15 and age 40. He enters college at 15, joins the band at an unspecified date, then "moves his family to Cuba" in 1961 (age 40). Did he finish college? Did he work in the band for like 18 years? When did he get married? Again, the prevalence of morons among people who worship people like Ojeda Rios. Hurmata (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have restored sourced material from The Economist. The original article can be found here 1 and a complete copy of the text is also available (www.independencia.net/ingles/te_filibertoOjeda.html) --J.Mundo (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Removed self-claimed "non-POV" edits from HERE that can only have meaning when viewed with POV glasses. DoJ investigations on itself have no scholarly value. Mercy11 (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

DOJ REPORT
It appears to me that the DOJ report as included in the article is misrepresented. The article only includes what is critical of the FBI ( "although the FBI utilized a negotiator from its San Juan office during the standoff, the FBI did not comply with its own policies regarding the integration of negotiators into operations planning or the use of multiple negotiators." and "FBI missed opportunities to provide accurate information to the public and to Commonwealth officials regarding the reasons for the delay in entering Ojeda's residence.") In fact, the Report was supportive of the FBI's actions in concluding that Rios fired the first shots and that the shots fired by the FBI agents including the one that killed Rios were justified: "We concluded that these shots also did not violate the DOJ Deadly Force Policy." The Report also includes a determination that the FBI sought to arrest, not kill Rios. I don't believe NPOV allows this very selective use of the Report.
ACCURACY
Some facts as included in the article are just inaccurate. The article includes this, "A coroner's autopsy concluded that Ojeda bled to death over the course of several hours". Then cites 2 sources neither of which support the statement. In fact, the official autopsy was performed by Dr. Francisco Cortés who believed that Rios died within 15-30 minutes of being shot. "Dr. Francisco Cortés, the Forensic Pathologist who performed the autopsy, told the OIG that based on the size of the wound and reasonable assumptions about Ojeda’s heart rate and blood pressure, he estimated that Ojeda expired from loss of blood approximately 15 to 30 minutes after being shot." Report, page xxxii. Reading the article gives the impression that the FBI waited to enter the house 24 hours so he could bleed to death. The article states: "The FBI was criticized for failing to notify Commonwealth of Puerto Rico officials in advance of the Ojeda arrest operation." This was NOT the conclusion of the Report which is the cited source for that paragraph. In fact, the Report agreed that the FBI acted appropriately in trying to limit the possibility of leaks by not informing local officials. "We determined that the FBI made the decision not to notify Puerto Rico officials of the operation because of concerns about leaks that could compromise the operation, which was a reasonable consideration under the circumstances. Report, page 171.
The article glosses over the victims of Ríos' violence. He wounded several agents in his first arrest in August 1985, one losing an eye. Ríos was acquitted of all charges in these shootings by a Puerto Rican jury using a self-defense argument. Among the other killings by the Macheteros were two U.S. Navy sailors in 1979 near Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico and one in 1982.
While the United Nations paragraph is considerably less wrong than the original as I found it. It should be clarified that a mere draft resolution (Cuban sponsored) by a committee of left leaning countries is not action by the UN. The United Nations has taken no position on the death of Ríos.
I think a more balanced article will focus more on his life, i.e., philosophy and use of violence, and less on his death. The article as it currently exists appears to slant the facts in a way that is unduly critical of the FBI.
I think we can agree that any inaccurate information has to be removed. We can also make changes to any parts of the article that might mislead a reader. I'm happy to allow you first crack at these changes so as to not subject the article to my "POV glasses." Eudemis (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The DOJ report is a WP:SPS and has no scholarly value. We need independent 3rd party reporting and this is a report produced by employees that work for the same department that approved the assassination. The Committee of 24 didn't produce just a "mere draft resolution" as you are calling it, but a final resolution for the General Assembly, which was not taken up by the GA. FYI, in case you are not yet aware, the Committee's resolution was also unanimous as stated HERE. Your "(Cuban sponsored)" editorial leaves much to be desired as an editor: you are not allowed to take sides that violate WP:NPOV and that is exactly what you editorial does. If much of the article talks about Ojeda Rios's death it is because that is what most publications talk about; his legacy is largely defined by his assessination and not by the other attributes you listed above. We need to back up our claims with actual WP:RS's, and not with what "appears" to us. Mercy11 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe your objection to the DOJ report as WP:SPS to be an inaccurate characterization. You may wish to review the policy a bit closer. As for the draft/final resolution by the Committee of 24 upon which you appear to place great weight, do you know why the General Assembly declined to bring it up? I would be interested to know why since it was unanimously adopted, without a vote, by the committee. Thanks, Hammersbach (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't take any sides. The draft resolution (a "final resolution" implies that it has been adopted by the G.A.) is called a draft resolution by the Committee itself, "Acting without a vote today, the Special Committee on decolonization approved a draft resolution that calls on the United States to expedite the process to allow Puerto Ricans to exercise fully their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, and return all occupied land and facilities on both Vieques island and Ceiba." [5] It was sponsored by Cuba per its own terms, "Introducing the draft resolution, Cuba’s representative said it was increasingly urgent for the General Assembly to carry out a comprehensive review of Puerto Rico’s status" [6] Your complaints are with the Committee itself. Eudemis (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • A government document (including a DOJ report) can be self-authenticating, as to its existence as a public document. This principle is well-established and codified into our Federal Rules of Evidence in Rule 902 (1-4): [7]. However, the notion that a government document is self-authenticating as to its content, and therefore beyond question or review, is preposterous.
I fail to see where anyone is trying to make the point that a "government document is self-authenticating as to its content". If you are trying to say the OIG report cannot be considered "self-authenticating as to its content" simply because it is a government document then I concur, just as I am sure that you would make the same assessment about the report by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Civil Rights Commission?
Regarding the allegations of FBI cover-up, there is an ample history behind it. In 1978, the FBI did precisely that in a highly publicized murder case. See this article in the Washington Post: “Ex-Justice Official Cites Cover-up by FBI in ’78 Puerto Rico Shootings” [8]
Regarding the allegations that Ojeda Rios fired first, there is ample history behind it. In 1987, he did precisely that when the FBI tried to arrest him. See this article's section titled Biography.
In 1937, the police shot 17 unarmed civilians in Ponce, Puerto Rico (including women and children) in broad daylight, during a Palm Sunday parade, and then tried to cover it up. See Ponce Massacre.
This event occurred 68 years before the attempted arrest of Ojeda Rios. Can you supply any reference that meets WP:RS that shows a direct correlation? Or is this simply a case of WP:SYN?
The results of the Warren Commission have been questioned by millions (tens of millions? hundreds of millions?) to this day, and books are still being written about it. The Warren Commission Wikipedia article (and several other Wiki articles) openly and consistently refer to this.
Again, the point being made here can be applied equally to the OIG report and the report by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Civil Rights Commission.
In the same manner, there is no reason to omit the doubts that have been widely expressed regarding the death of Ojeda Rios. The Governor of Puerto Rico Aníbal Acevedo Vilá criticized the FBI assault as "improper" and "highly irregular" and demanded to know why his government was not informed of it.[1] The Puerto Rico Justice Department filed suit in federal court against the FBI and the US Attorney General, demanding information crucial to the Commonwealth's own investigation of the incident.
1) No one has tried to "omit the doubts that have been widely expressed regarding the death of Ojeda Rios", if you want to include them please do, as long as they are reliably sourced and neutrally presented, 2) the OIG report clearly states that the government of Aníbal Acevedo Vilá was not notified due to concerns about the information being leaked, and 3) the suit was dismissed by a lower court and the Supreme Court, which more than implies that it lacked merit.
When one government sues another government, for the release of critical information, that is extremely noteworthy. The Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe and Hartford Courant evidently agreed, because they all reported it with extensive articles. [9] [10] [11] [12]
To be accurate none of the 4 listed articles include any information about one government sues another government. They are all from 2005, the year of Rios' death. The case was filed by Roberto J. Sanchez-Ramos on behalf of Puerto Rico in March of 2006.[13] Eudemis (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The point, as is plainly stated, is that the sources referenced to support the noteworthiness of the one government (suing) another government predate the actual suit, and therefore categorically cannot possibly be valid sources.
It would be POV to not include this material, or to attempt to minimize it. Sarason (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Please include any and all information that you feel is valid as long as it neutral, verifiable, and balanced. Hammersbach (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The death is a controversy between what the FBI claims happened and what the Government later determined actually happened. As such I have included both sides - and the complete quotation for the incomplete FBI quote previously there. The FBI report suffers from WP:COI and, per WP:V it can only be used to report what the FBI claims that happened, since forensic scientists, the DA, and Puerto Rico's AG, the press and other independent 3rd parties were blocked from both the scene and the entire area. Mercy11 (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Has taken no position on his death" violates WP:OR (Neutrality Dispute)

  • We don't say "the sky has never been orange" because such statement has never been documented by a third party WP:RS that we can cite. Likewise, the UN source doesn't say that the UN General Assembly "has taken no position on his death". Removed this edit HERE per policy. WP:SYN explains this. A secondary WP:RS must be given that actually states the claim. The source used doesn't say that. Mercy11 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You previously reverted my edit that correctly noted the source of this draft as being from Cuba and other leftist countries.[14] Please also note the incorrect original version and that the article is using my citation that shows that the United Nations took no position on the death of Ojeda Rios in 2006. It does not say the draft did not come up for a vote. There is, in fact, no reason to include a draft that was never voted on by the General Assembly and leave the inaccurate impression that the U.N. has somehow condemned the FBI's actions. It appears you have the article in some sort of lockdown. I have added a {[NPOV}} tag until the issues surrounding the selective use of the DOJ report and the tone of the article as an indictment of the FBI can be corrected.
Additionally the article fails to note Rios' Marxist philosophy or that he was reportedly friends with Castro "a musician turned communist and Puerto Rican revolutionary"[15]and "Ojeda Rios' objective was an independent Puerto Rico, based on the model established in Cuba by his friend President Fidel Castro." [16] This gives a UN draft introduced by Cuba that was never adopted by the U.N. it's proper context but it's been purged from the article.
Selective use of the DOJ report in the article includes these references critical of the FBI:
1. An investigation by the Office of the Inspector General concluded that "this daylight assault was extremely dangerous and not the best option available to the FBI."
2. The Office of the Inspector General report concluded that "although the FBI utilized a negotiator from its San Juan office during the standoff, the FBI did not comply with its own policies regarding the integration of negotiators into operations planning or the use of multiple negotiators."
The report by the Inspector General of the DOJ was, in fact, supportive of the FBI contentions as to: motive, who initiated the shooting, the appropriate use of deadly force, the secrecy involved to prevent leaks (not notifying local police), as discussed above. This is not the impression a reader of the article gets because of the bias with which the Report is being used to criticize the FBI.
The weight given to the 5 member Puerto Rican civil rights board whose report 6 years after the event is fine, if balanced by the Report from the Inspector General of the DOJ. The DOJ is not part of, nor is it associated with, the FBI. Inspector General Reports have been critical of FBI tactics in numerous instances, phone records illegally seized [17], FBI's lying to Congess [18],."A number of public scandals and investigations by Congress and the Justice Department Inspector General (IG) — both before and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 — reveal the FBI often violates and/or ignores these internal rules, along with other legal and constitutional limitations." [19]
In addition to the bias issues, the article remains factually inaccurate. The US Supreme Court never heard Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v Gonzales, the case in which Puerto Rican authorities sought to subpoena documents from the FBI. It was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the First District who unanimously affirmed the District Court's ruling that dismissed Roberto J. Sánchez-Rámos' complaint based on the Administrative Procedure Act, 490 F.3d 50(2007).Eudemis (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your patience. Here is my reply:
  1. "You previously reverted my edit that correctly noted the source of this draft as being from Cuba and other leftist countries". If you are referring to THIS, yes, this was done under the authority of WP:WEIGHT. This article is about Filiberto Ojeda Rios (FOR), not about the member countries in the UN Decolonization Committee. For that, we used wikilinks that point to the UN Decolonization Committe article and then we include that material there.
  2. "There is, in fact, no reason to include a draft that was never voted on by the General Assembly and leave the inaccurate impression that the U.N. has somehow condemned the FBI's actions." You would have to cite a WP:PG to support your claim. I am not sure under what authority you would want that removed.
  3. "It appears you have the article in some sort of lockdown." I am not sure what you me by this. Can you provide one of my diffs for clarification?
  4. "The article fails to note Rios' Marxist philosophy ... his friend President Fidel Castro." Per WP:BOLD, you can add that. If it's all properly sourced as per policies, it should be able to stand fine.
  5. "The [OIG] report concluded that '...the FBI did not comply with its own policies." I am not sure why you see this as WP:Cherrypicking since this is simply the second counterpart of a controversy about FOR's death. The previous statement makes this clear when it says that "Rosado [FOR's wife] has alleged that Ojeda offered to turn himself in to journalist Jesús Dávila, but that his offer was rebuffed by the agents.
  6. "The report by the Inspector General of the DOJ was, in fact, supportive of the FBI contentions as to: motive, ...This is not the impression a reader of the article gets because of the bias with which the Report is being used to criticize the FBI." I believe that is what the OIG report does say. The problem is that you are attempting to present the statements in the OIG report as fact and you cannot do that. You have already been told that the OIG report is "self-authenticating as to its existence". This means you can say the report was issued, you can say the report says this and says that, but, per WP:RS, you cannot say that "report concluded that there was no plan by the FBI to kill Ríos and that Ríos had initiated the exchange of gunfire", etc., because that report is a WP:SPS: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else [would] probably have done so [already] - basically, if the FBI claims are factual, then some other third-party WP:RS (the media, for instance) would have already published things like "the [FBI] made appropriate use of deadly force", etc.
  7. "The weight given to the 5 member Puerto Rican civil rights board..., if balanced by the Report from the Inspector General of the DOJ." The analogy between the two reports is inappropriate. The reason is that the report produced by the OIG is a report produced by the same US executive branch that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a governmental agency of, namely, the US Department of Justice. Essentailly, you had an agency investigating itself, and as such, the investigation is unreliable. The Puerto Rico Comision de Derechos Civiles (CDC), on the other hand, is an independent agency of the government of Puerto Rico. It is analogous to one of the independent agencies of the United States government. A somewhat comparable agency in the US would be CRS and its Congressional Research Service reports. CDC was created by an Act of the Puerto Rico Legislature and doesn't report to the governor, the Puerto Rico Department of Justice or any of the Government's executive branches. The validity of the two reports is just not comparable. Like, the US, Puerto Rico has a 3-branch checks-and-balances form of government, but the American report was not made by a different branch of government; the Puerto Rican report was. That is why the OIG report is WP:SPS and the CDC report is not.
  8. "Inspector General Reports have been critical of FBI tactics in numerous instances,... phone records illegally seized, FBI's lying to Congess..." That is all WP:OTHERSTUFF.
  9. "...the article remains factually inaccurate. The US Supreme Court never heard Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v Gonzales..." I don't see where the article says the USSC heard the case. The article does say "The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit in the summer of 2007", so I am not sure why you are raising this point.
  10. "Selective use of the DOJ report in the article includes these references critical of the FBI..." If by selective you mean WP:cherry-picking, I would disagree with that. The reason is that that entire section also makes the following statements critical of Ojeda Rios as well but which you do not appear to have noticed(the numbers are mine for dicussion reference):
    1. The FBI was performing surveillance of the area driven by reports that Ojeda had been spotted in the home.
    2. The FBI determined its surveillance team had been detected, and decided to proceed with serving an arrest warrant against Ojeda.
    3. As the agents approached the home, Ojeda opened fire.
    4. One agent was wounded [by Ojeda Rios's fire]].
    5. Filiberto's wife says that the "FBI entered the house shooting with no warning." The FBI denies these accounts, stating Ojeda opened fire as agents approached.
    6. An investigation by the Office of the Inspector General concluded that "this daylight assault was extremely dangerous and not the best option available to the FBI."
You are objecting to #6 above (just 1 of the 6 points) but fail to notice that the article does have 5 times that many statements critical of Ojeda Rios. If anything, to be mathematically fair, we need to add 5 more statements critical of the FBI.
I have removed the NPOV banner you placed on the article since I have addressed what I believe are all your issues in dispute. If, in WP:AGF, you still have additional objections, feel free to restore the banner and we can take it from there. Mercy11 (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If I may, there is a difference between addressing issues and resolving them. The comment above does not accomplish the latter, and, quite frankly, only serves to further strengthen the argument that the article is bias. The NPOV tag should remain until such time as the issues are resolved. Hammersbach (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Firstly and probably most fundamentally, do not remove the NPOV banner while we are discussing the NPOV issues. Part of its purpose is to alert readers to the issue and hopefully direct other editors to the talk page to weigh in. On the plus side I believe we may have, at last, had a breakthrough. I'll respond sequentially and try to be concise.
1-3. Here is what we know about this committee draft. The sole reference used to justify its inclusion in the article is a press release and not an official U.N. document. The article states that the draft never came up for a vote in the General Assembly. There is nothing supporting this statement. There is no reliable secondary source to support this press release's inclusion. It was introduced by Cuba to this committee per the press release. We know, because there are a finite number of United Nations resolutions passed, that the United Nations has taken no position on the death of Rios. There is a citation I added that shows that the UN passed no resolution dealing with Rios. Based on these facts, there is no justification for its inclusion and if included, the context becomes important. You reverted that edit. [20]
5-7. Wow. You state, "The problem is that you are attempting to present the statements in the OIG report as fact and you cannot do that." I only want the Report to be accurately represented and in the article it is not. The thrust of the Report exonerated the involved members of FBI of the most serious charges leveled against them. The Report effectively ended the government's investigation into Rios' death and for that reason it is key to that section of the article. The report of the 5 member civil rights board did not have the same significance. You state that the IG's "investigation is unreliable." What support do you have that this is true? I provided citations of the IG's Office exposing FBI wrongdoing. Do you know of instances reported by reliable sources of the IG being involved in a FBI coverup? Since you have suggested that I incorporate WP:RS to flesh out the parts of the IG Report that are missing, I will try to edit with that restriction in mind.
8. I believe WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay about deletion of articles and notability. I would again like something supportive of your contention that the Office of the IG is so unreliable much of its Report cannot be included.
9. If I wasn't clear let me rephrase. The federal court system has three levels. The first appellate court level is the US Court of Appeals. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was the court that dismissed the lawsuit in the summer of 2007, not the U.S. Supreme Court. [21]
10. I really don't follow your logic here. The inclusion of facts 1. 2. 3. 4. are conceded by everyone. Fact 5 is a problem. It states correctly there was a controversy surrounding who fired first. Then follows it with " An investigation by the Office of the Inspector General concluded that "this daylight assault was extremely dangerous and not the best option available to the FBI." [17]" Apart from it being a non sequitur, it neglects to mention that the Report found that Rios fired first. Readers will certainly learn what the Puerto Rican civil rights board determined but not the IG. Instead the article uses the Report to criticize the FBI.
I do feel as if I understand your concerns about using WP:RS where the IG Report is involved. We also need to locate third party sources for the civil rights board's conclusions. Eudemis (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest you get over the "draft" wording. That is not a major subject of discussion here any longer. #5 thru 7 are what they are. No offense but you are being repetitious ad nauseum. I suggest you make a proposal; I don't see one yet. #8: Of course it an essay, that is not disputed. It is an essay that explains why your argument is not valid. It saves an editor having to repeat here everything that is already stated in the essay. #9, if it was dismissed by a court other than the USSC, then the article should state that. I agree the article should not be factually innacurate. #10(5)If there is a controversy as to who fired first, then the article needs to state that, so long as each of the two sides of the controversy include valid sources. The OIG report you have produced so far is not a valid source as it fails as an WP:SPS. If you diasgree, take it HERE. Mercy11 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hammersbach, I suggest you get over your "speculation" editorial POV. The word is nowhere in your cite. Google "speculation" for support, add a RS, and then your "speculation" speculation can stay. Mercy11 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Not really sure why the need for the somewhat aggressive tone over a rather minor wording issue, but the change I just made more closely aligns with the source. Cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hammersbach, " bail bond default on 23 September 1990, a date that coincided the anniversary of a Puerto Rican pro-independence uprising known as El Grito de Lares" is WP:OR. I know of no source that puts the bail bond date and the date of teh GDL event on the same sentence. Perhaps you do have a source that I am not aware of.
"In response to questions raised in media accounts and by some public officials in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Robert Mueller...". No. it's no ?Mejor? because no reasonable person would ever expect the opposite, i.e., that all public officials would raise questions about FOR's death. So the qualification is unnecessary and might even confuse readers as ato why it is being qualified that way. Mercy11 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, 1) JMundo is the editor who added the date and citation to the article's Biography section [22], and 2) the word “some” is actually used in the citation I provided, [23]. (Please see your previous comment to me above) Cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hammersback, I cannot reach the Independent News London article. Will need WayBack. Will try later. As for "some", since its in the cite, that adds some weight. Still, I would argue that WP:IAR comes into play here for the sake of clarity. Mercy11 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Eudemis

User Eudemis's talk page edits HERE fail to follow Talk Page Guidelines, "Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood" and "Avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions...".

Eudemis, your priorities are difficult to follow. I suggest you consolidate your points/thoughts here below: I do not intent to answer to the 8 or so arguments you have scattered throughout different areas of the dialogue HERE. I have removed the POV banner meanwhile: since no one debated you over your draft resolution/final resolution matter, you failed to make your POV-based objection clear. BTW, per WP:V, my edits today reverted some of your work: as noted in the edit summaries, WP:V does not allow editors to indiscriminately remove sourced content. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT discusses this further. Mercy11 (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV tag, you are not at liberty to remove it while discussions are ongoing. Because you currently are controlling the content of the article, I believe you are obligated to respond to the concerns of those whose edits you keep reverting. Regarding removing sourced content, you have done quite of bit of removing mine. My edits were properly sourced. Regarding muddled writing, I understand you are probably struggling with English as a second language, but you have several grammatical mistakes and misspellings in your edits. I am reluctant to do housekeeping edits for an article with this level of bias. You will need to address the issues as I have laid them out above. Eudemis (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is your objection now? If you now object to my translation, may I suggest we go to a third party, such as HERE? And if you have additional objections, what are they? I can respond to your 8 or so replies above; I just won't do it if they are scattered in bits and pieces all over - it's counterproductive. You are right that I did object to sourced edits you made HERE and which you edit-summarized with the comment "more neutral tone". The problem there was that you editorialized your edit with words like "speculation...U.S. Representatives...", and yet those words are not found even once in that source. Per MOS, editorials are not allowed. There's a difference between WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV. Your edit was WP:POV. In that edit, you also added information that added a hint of bias, such as "but [includes] no large Western democracies". WP:NPOV forbids that. Last, that report was self-published, so it doesn't pass WP:V. Mercy11 (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually pleased that you have mentioned a third opinion. I am very agreeable to having a third opinion with regard to the serious NPOV problems with the article. I'm excluding Hammersbach since he has already expressed his opinion. I would suggest we get a seasoned editor or administrator which won't be easy. They typically have their own pet projects and their own fires to put out. I don't see any need for translation services nor do I think they will resolve anything. You seem quite fond of referencing wiki policies but I don't think anyone reading the article will feel they've been followed. See WP:NPOV tutorial See especially "Information Suppression" [24]
"A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted.... Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: Biased or selective representation of sources"
If you are agreeable, I will post our article on the Third Opinion page and hope we can attract an experienced editor to serve as our third opinion. I won't post it until you, Hammersbach, Sarason and anyone else who wishes to weigh in has agreed on the wording. Are you willing to allow a third editor to resolve the NPOV issues? WP:3O Eudemis (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Before you ask for a 3rd opinion, I suggest you make your objection(s) clear because, other than your crying "POV" but without specifics, I myself do not know what your current objections are. As such, the POV argument may be viewed as WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Your only clear objection was on the translation, and 3O is not the process in place to seek help with translation. Your recent link above has no bearing on this discussion: it is just an essay, not a policy, not a guideline, not even an info page (into which good essays grow), so we can't go by that. Mercy11 (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If you will look, the translation objection to which you keep referring was from a Hammersbach edit summary, not mine. I have not referred to any translation issue. A more careful reading of my posts here should make my objections to the current article clear to you. The WP:NPOV Tutorial essay is not controversial and is very much on point. Essays are wiki ranked for impact and this one is ranked "high" [25] making it more influential than the essay WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT [26] which you've referenced twice already in this discussion. I am very disappointed that you are rejecting this opportunity to have an experienced editor outside of the current discussion examine the article for bias. If I have failed to express a legitimate objection to the article then our third opinion would surely: endorse your position, tell me to bug off and congratulate you on your balanced and equitable approach. What alternative resolution method do you suggest that would be fair? Eudemis (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said I was "rejecting this opportunity to have an experienced editor outside of the current discussion examine the article for bias"; you did. As for essays, thanks for the insight into the ratings - I wasn't aware of that. Still, if you want to rate them with the rest of the essayists and rate them from here to the stratosphere, be my guest. But they are still just "guidance essay [that] contain comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors"... and they are "not a Wikipedia policy or guideline", as each essay states at its header. For a suggestion on continuing this dialogue, I direct your attention to the section just below titled "Integrity of this talk page". With a neatly arranged format, as they have it there, a sane dialogue can take place. So, again, I ask, what would be a list of your objections? Or it is that you object to presenting a list of objections?? Mercy11 (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Update--- You know what? never mind the listing of your objections. I am just going to reply to your 2+ points above under ""No position" violates WP:OR" whcih seem to be the closest to keeping a sane discussion now that the other editor Hammerback has admitted to being the confusion culprit here.. Mercy11 (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, since my name has become part of the discussion, there are a few things I’d like to mention:
1) WP:3O would not apply here as that particular process only applies when there are just two editors involved. A more appropriate route to take would be to use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, with which I believe Mercy11 has some current experience…
2) I would like to offer my apologies to Eudemis. I should have spoken up sooner when Mercy11 was dinging you for “the 8 or so arguments you have scattered throughout different areas”. (This despite the fact that the edit being cited above clearly shows that I was the author.)
3) As for the article as it is currently written, I concur with the POV tag that has been added. Just a few of examples why:
• An editor deleted the reliably sourced information pertaining to the OIG report in the "Aftermath" section which said that “there was no plan by the FBI to kill Ríos” with the explanation that the report was“WP:SPS and has no scholarly value” and that it’s “a report approved by the same department that approved the assassination.” This same editor then entered a different government report in the lede, one by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Civil Rights Commission (PRCRC), which called the death an “illegal killing by the FBI.”
• The translation of the PRCRC’s conclusions are inaccurate and poorly worded. An example can be taken from item 5, “The FBI knew Mr. Ojeda Rios was mortaly (sic) wounded…” A more accurate translation would be “It should have been relatively easy for the FBI to confirm that Ojeda Rios was seriously wounded…”
• The lede is entirely unbalanced and slanted using such biased phrases as, “…a date that coincided with Los Macheteros's venerable anniversary of a Puerto Rican pro-independence…”, “The FBI operation, still not entirely laid clear…”, and “However, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Civil Rights Commission forged on with its own investigation…”
In its present form I just don’t believe that the article can be balanced and the information presented in a manner that complies with WP:NPOV without significant rewrites of the lede and the “Death” and "Aftermath" sections. Hammersbach (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC) aka The Confusion Culprit
Culprit, you are rightfully ashamed. I agree in terms of content that the current article needs a rewrite due to its tone as much as its omissions. The benefit of the WP:3O is its speed and finality if everyone is agreeable to it beforehand. I've read the Oscar López Rivera dispute summary in which both Sarason and Mercy11 are involved on a single issue about the use of one term. This article has more than a single issue and addressing all of them would be a very long and bruising process on that board. That board is self-described as an "informal place to resolve small content disputes." My assessment is that our dispute is not small as it encompasses really the whole article. That said, since I appear to be getting nowhere in terms of resolution, I'm open to suggestions. Eudemis (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

A previous entry from me was interlineated with comments from another editor, who then failed to sign his/her interlineated comments. This created the mistaken impression that the new, interlineated comments were my own. I am now forced to re-enter my words in their entirety.

Please respond in a good-faith manner...preferably AT THE END of the entry, WITH YOUR OWN SIGNATURE. Otherwise you will create rather than dispel confusion.

A government document (including a DOJ report) can be self-authenticating, as to its existence as a public document. This principle is well-established and codified into our Federal Rules of Evidence in Rule 902 (1-4): [27]. However, the notion that a government document is self-authenticating as to its content, and therefore beyond question or review, is preposterous.
Regarding the allegations of FBI cover-up, there is an ample history behind it. In 1978, the FBI did precisely that in a highly publicized murder case. See this article in the Washington Post: “Ex-Justice Official Cites Cover-up by FBI in ’78 Puerto Rico Shootings” [28]
In 1937, the police shot 17 unarmed civilians in Ponce, Puerto Rico (including women and children) in broad daylight, during a Palm Sunday parade, and then tried to cover it up. See Ponce Massacre.
The results of the Warren Commission have been questioned by millions (tens of millions? hundreds of millions?) to this day, and books are still being written about it. The Warren Commission Wikipedia article (and several other Wiki articles) openly and consistently refer to this.
In the same manner, there is no reason to omit the doubts that have been widely expressed regarding the death of Ojeda Rios. The Governor of Puerto Rico Aníbal Acevedo Vilá criticized the FBI assault as "improper" and "highly irregular" and demanded to know why his government was not informed of it.[1] The Puerto Rico Justice Department filed suit in federal court against the FBI and the US Attorney General, demanding information crucial to the Commonwealth's own investigation of the incident.
When one government sues another government, for the release of critical information, that is extremely noteworthy. The Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe and Hartford Courant evidently agreed, because they all reported it with extensive articles. [29] [30] [31] [32]
It would be POV to not include this material, or to attempt to minimize it. Sarason (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sarason, my apologies for any confusion that you may have experienced over my reply to your comments. My intent was to try and make it easier for you, and others, to understand, point-by-point, my reply to your comments. Of note, I actually did, in good faith, add my signature at the very end of my entry which is, interesting enough, referenced (incorrectly) above by another editor. However, since you prefer a single compiled reply, then I am more than happy to provide it below:
1) I fail to see where anyone is trying to make the point that a "government document is self-authenticating as to its content". If you are trying to say the OIG report cannot be considered "self-authenticating as to its content" simply because it is a government document then I concur, just as I am sure that you would make the same assessment about the report by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Civil Rights Commission?
2) Regarding the allegations that Ojeda Ríos fired first, there is ample history behind it. In 1987, he did precisely that when the FBI tried to arrest him. See this article's section titled Biography.
3) This event occurred 68 years before the attempted arrest of Ojeda Ríos. Can you supply any reference that meets WP:RS that shows a direct correlation? Or is this simply a case of WP:SYN?
4) Again, the point that you are attempting to make here can be applied equally to the OIG report and the report by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Civil Rights Commission.
5) a) No one has tried to "omit the doubts that have been widely expressed regarding the death of Ojeda Ríos". If you want to include them please do, as long as they are reliably and properly sourced and neutrally presented, b) the OIG report clearly states that the government of Aníbal Acevedo Vilá was not notified due to concerns about the information being leaked, and c) the suit was dismissed by a lower court and the Supreme Court, which more than implies that it lacked merit.
6) The sources that you referenced to support the noteworthiness of the one government suing another government predate the actual suit, and therefore categorically cannot possibly be valid sources. I am sure that there are credible sources out there that you can find that show that this suit was filed, just as there are credible sources out there that show that it was dismissed.
7) Please include any and all information that you feel is valid as long as it neutral, properly sourced, and relevant.
Cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Fugitive is killed in FBI stakeout". The Boston Globe. September 25, 2005. Retrieved 2009-05-05.

This article has a number of additional problems

The article cites the day of Grito de Lares as a Macheteros's venerable anniversary of a Puerto Rican pro-independence uprising. That is an awkward sentence since the short-lived Macheteros movement could not be venerable, nor is the Grito de Lares a universally venerated event, specially since it has been attached recently to independence groups, whose status policy has never garnered the support of the majority of the electorate of the island of Puerto Rico. Nor do I think the Grito de Lares is an anniversary celebrated only or mainly by Macheteros, of which I do not know how many exist openly.

Second, the article states that the killing of Ojeda Ríos has been mourned by Puerto Ricans in general. I do not see where the data for this observation arises. There are likely many in Puerto Rico, who felt apathetic or would not mourn his death, whether it was a justified or uunjustified killing or not. Ojeda Rios was a man who had previously blinded an arresting officer and shot at others. I suspect most Puerto Ricans would condemn unnecesarry violence from any source. This article does not give equal weight to the violence with which Ojeda Rios was associated relative to that by the FBI.

I come to this web page via comments left on the Oscar Lopez Rivera entry by the same two authors that zealously guard this one. I find the same lack of neutrality, and ommission of facts colors their discussion here.Rococo1700 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have already asked for mediation on a dispute in that article because it states that OLR was never accused of violence, when he was convicted of a violent crime, again according to DOJ documents. My question to those adding the Neutrality dispute banner here, should we add a similar one to OLR entry?Rococo1700 (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"...by the same two authors that zealously guard this one". The categorization made is inappropriate and unhelpful. I reminder for WP:AGF. Everyone is welcome to edit the encyclopedia. The discussion here is about F.O.R. Any discussion of OLR should be made at the WP:DR/N on him which is still open for discussion.
As for the "venerable anniversary" wording that you seem to object to, it is sourced. Why, then, would you object? Do you have an alternate word?
As for "Puerto Ricans in general", again, I am not sure why this is objection. The facts point to a wide cross section of Puerto Ricans that participated in the mourning. Of course there may still feel others that felt apathetic, but we have to report what is reported by WP:RS in general. Mercy11 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello, just dropping in. Here is my opinion. Mercy does make some valid points here. I remember that when Ojeda was murdered, that the actions taken by the FBI were considered and still are considered as excessive by the media. That said, it must be noted that the independence factions in Puerto Rico did mourn his death. However, it is also true that many non-independence believers were in disbelief and did not agree with the actions and the way that the FBI handled the situation. The murderous actions were similar to those taken in the Cerro Maravilla incident. That is my 2c. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The lede and the "removal of sourced material"

Recently I tried to make some changes to the lede of this article which I find to be biased and containing some rather POV implied statements. My purpose was to try and bring both neutrality and balance. These edits were reverted, twice, by the same editor whose edit summary objection was that my edits constituted the “removal of sourced material.” Here is the lede as I amended it, [33], and here is the version to which it has been reverted [34].

So the question is, did I remove sourced material? Let’s take a look…

  1. The first change I made was to add the exact date on which Ojeda Rios defaulted on his bail bond, September 23, 1990, and move the fact that it coincided with the Puerto Rican independence uprising, Grito de Lares to the same sentence. This is more appropriate as Ojeda Rios was known for taking action, making announcements, etc. on this date. On the other hand, stating that the FBI operation “coincided” with Grito de Lares implies to the reader that the FBI acted on this particular date with intention. However the OIG report states that it was the FBI’s plan to arrest Ojeda Rios in the early morning hours of the 24th while the report by the PRCRC does not even mention Grito de Lares. In any event, no deletion of “sourced material” was made with this edit.
  2. I changed this phrase “…claiming an attempt to serve an arrest warrant…” to “…attempting to serve an arrest warrant…” Use of the word “claiming” is a bit of, well, WP:Claim, and insinuates that there may have been another unstated purpose. In any event, no deletion of “sourced material” was made with this edit.
  3. I deleted the phrase “…still not entirely laid clear…” I am unable to find anything in the article that would support the inclusion of this statement. In any event, no deletion of “sourced material” was made with this edit.
  4. The next change I made did include the deletion of a citation and dealt with changing the word “killing” to “death”. The problem with an editor taking the position that I am deleting “sourced material” here is that there are a multitude of reliable sources that use the word “death” that could equally be cited. My concern with using the word “killing” is that it can be, and in fact in some sources is, defined as being done with intent. For that reason I believe the more neutral word “death” is appropriate.
  5. In order to achieve better balance in the lede I added the conclusion reached in the report by the OIG. This was basically a cut-and-paste from the Aftermath section that was deleted earlier. In retrospect I should have changed the wording, and in the future will, to reflect that in the judgment of the OIG the FBI “did not violate the Department of Justice Deadly Force Policy.” In any event, no deletion of “sourced material” was made with this edit.
  6. The last edit I made consisted of some minor wording changes to the two sentences dealing with the report by the PRCRC. I combined these into one sentence with the most notable difference being changing “…forged on with…”, which is a touch melodramatic, to “…conducted...” which carries a more impartial tone. In any event, no deletion of “sourced material” was made with this edit.

So, is the edit summary objection accurate and was there a "removal of sourced material"? Well, golly... Hammersbach (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I responded to what you are talking about above. Also, I also added THIS] additional reply. Perhaps you didn't see it. One recent objection I had was based on WP:LEDE. The lede is not supposed to introduuce new material; it should be a summary of material that already exists in the article, and your edits (sourced or not) were not doing that. Where do you think I failed since the sources do say "killing" and not just "death"? As for the OIG report, I mentioned it seemed to be a WP:SPS. At least another editor agreed. It is best, I think, that if information is disputed to simply find other sources that won't have a problem with WP:SPS. The are several sources that connect the FBI's timing with Grito de Lares (I can provide them if you disagree), but I know of no source that conencts his killing with Ojeda Rios's making speeches on that day. If you have sources, fine; if not, it becomes WP:OR. On the "Claiming to serve an arrest warrant", again, the problem is that the FBI failed to notify anyone, even the PR Police Commissioner, even the Governor. Basically, they had a free hand to do as they wished and there is not 3rd independent party that supports their claim. We have to consider the fact that they used military style weapons and ammo - when do you bring that sort of weapondry when serving an arrest warrant with a multitude of officers on 1 single citizen? Perhaps in a police state but not in the US. The matter is controversial at best, and it should be presented in that fashion, IMO. Fourth, another editor feels the article is not objective. Whether he is right or not, making changes (especially to the lede!) is not prudent at this time because it is not in the spirit of WP:DISPUTE. For example, someone stated (I am parphrasing) that the man's death didn't go to the US Supreme Court but to an Appeals Court. This is good information and undisputed, if factual. But I recently came across THIS which makes it clear the case was appealed to the USSC, and not just to an Appeals Court. As such, "The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit in the summer of 2007" is probably technically not correct, neither is correct to state that "The US Supreme Court never heard Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v Gonzales" as the other editor was stating because it doesn't provide the entire picture as to how far up the case progressed judicially. That is, IMO, but what do you think? On #5, you are probably correct, I think I took the short route because a convoluted manual revert would had been required to object to some changes surgically, and thus there was some collateral "damage". I wasn't objecting to (for example) spelling corrections, and the like. I do stand by the "killing" wording, however, because this is sourced. As such, it shouldn't be disputed. In particular, killing and death are not mutually exclusive and, at least to me, the word "killing" does not imply intent as you are stating. Mercy11 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Mercy11, if I may...
  1. "I responded to what you are talking about above. Also, I also added this..." Would I be wrong is saying that you had complained earlier about my replies being scattered around and in fact had even referred to me as the "confusion culprit"?
  2. "The lede is not supposed to introduuce (sic) new material; it should be a summary of material that already exists in the article, and your edits (sourced or not) were not doing that." As I clearly stated above, I only added one item to the lede and that was to add balance. Of note, this is the second time you have deleted this same sourced information from the article.
  3. "As for the OIG report, I mentioned it seemed to be a WP:SPS. At least another editor agreed." I have reread the entire talk page and I cannot find anywhere where another editor agreed with your assessment. I do see where one editor wrote, "...the notion that a government document is self-authenticating as to its content, and therefore beyond question or review, is preposterous", but that is not the same thing. I believe that your interpretation and application of WP:SPS is incorrect.
  4. "The are several sources that connect the FBI's timing with Grito de Lares (I can provide them if you disagree)" Please provide them. I would be very interested to see what reliable sources you have that definitively show that the FBI planned to arrest Ojeda Rios on the 23rd, and not the 24th as stated in the OIG report.
  5. "...I know of no source that conencts (sic) his killing with Ojeda Rios's making speeches on that day." I don't believe that you really understand the point I am making in item 1 above. When you get the chance you may wish to reread it.
  6. "On the 'Claiming to serve an arrest warrant', again, the problem is that the FBI failed to notify anyone, even the PR Police Commissioner, even the Governor. Basically, they had a free hand to do as they wished and there is not 3rd independent party that supports their claim. We have to consider the fact that they used military style weapons and ammo - when do you bring that sort of weapondry when serving an arrest warrant with a multitude of officers on 1 single citizen? Perhaps in a police state but not in the US." Not meaning to sound rude, but I think your reply demonstrates why we have, and should use, WP:Claim.
  7. "...neither is correct to state that 'The US Supreme Court never heard Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v Gonzales' as the other editor was stating..." The other editor is absolutely correct. The source you reference states that the "Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider a lawsuit by Puerto Rico..." This means that oral aruguments were not presented to SCOTUS, which can also be stated, and commonly is, that the case was not heard. As for the appeal to SCOTUS, anyone can appeal their case all the way up. It's having your case heard that shows whether or not it had true merit.
  8. "...at least to me, the word 'killing' does not imply intent as you are stating." I have not stated that it implies intent. I am stating that there are sources, such as dictionaries, that define the word killing as act of intent. For example, the MacMillan dictionary defines killing "as act in which someone is deliberately killed" [35] The word "death" is both neutral and impartial in tone.
As I stated in a previous comment, I don’t believe that the article can be balanced and the information presented in a manner that complies with WP:NPOV without significant rewrites of the lede and the “Death” and "Aftermath" sections. Hammersbach (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
On the very minor issue of using "death" vs "killing", killing puts the emphasis back on the FBI and away from Rios. The article is too heavily focused on the FBI's role in Rios' death. So much so that we learn little about Rios, his philosophy, his crimes but every excruciating detail about the FBI's alleged intent and the 5 member civil rights board's conclusions surrounding his "illegal killing." To put this another way, would it be wrong to substitute "the terrorist", "the criminal" or "the fugitive" for "Rios" within the article? All are technically correct but doing so is hardly neutral. How's this for the lead?:
Filiberto Ojeda Ríos (April 26, 1933 – September 23, 2005) was the ringleader of a terrorist organization known as the Boricua Popular Army (Ejército Popular Boricua, a.k.a., Los Macheteros) whose lawlessness and violence included bombings, armed robbery and murder. Rios sought to bring about a communist revolution in Puerto Rico similar to the one created in Cuba by his friend, Fidel Castro. His conviction for participating in a 1983 Wells Fargo heist led to his becoming a fugitive for 15 years. Rios was eventually killed in a shootout with FBI agents in 2005 while trying to evade capture in Puerto Rico. Ríos' crimes did little to advance the cause of Puerto Rican independence.
Ríos achieved some level of folk hero status among the peasant class in Puerto Rico. Complaints by Puerto Rican authorities led to an investigation of the FBI's handling of the Ríos operation by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Justice. Its report, released in 2006, cleared the FBI of any misconduct. Cuba's attempt to protest Rios' killing through the United Nations also failed.
There is a tone problem? Well, this article has a serious tone problem as well. It reads like it has been redacted by Los Macheteros. Can we at least agree that the article's current tone is not neutral? Eudemis (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

U.N. Committee Draft

Standards for Inclusion Given the POV issues in the article, the same strict standards for inclusion should be applied to all edits including those of the pro nationalist editors. There is no reliable secondary source with a reputation for fact checking (this definition excludes socialist propaganda webpages) that reports this Committee's unpassed draft resolution. The citation is to a primary source which violates WP:RS. The citation provided is not even an official U.N. document. Given these facts, the paragraph should be excluded until a reliable secondary source is found.

Off topic: The pending request for mediation of the Oscar Lopez Rivera page doesn't have any participants (yet) from the group of editors that participates in editing this page. Given the level of concern over bias and the correct interpretation of policy, participation by these editors would be extremely helpful and provide a basis for resolution of similar disputes on other pages. Eudemis (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Filiberto Ojeda Ríos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Filiberto Ojeda Ríos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Filiberto_Ojeda_Ríos/Archive_1&oldid=1040621319"