Talk:Paul Rose (political figure)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is entitled Paul Rose (political figure). That is quite clearly a SUBJECTIVE VALUE JUDGMENT by someone who WANTED to characterize him in that way.

In this country, Canada, "political figures" are ELECTED or appointed by those we elect, they are not bombers, kidnappers, terrorists, and potentially murderers.

Please change the TITLE of this page to a NON-subjective one.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete and demagogic[edit]

This article is a very good example of demagogic writing...

It is incomplete, inaccurate, presents facts out of context and adds useless details about matters not directly related to the subject in the sole purpose of pushing only one side of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francois1723 (talkcontribs) 13:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Paul Rose, born October 16, 1943, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, is a Quebec sovereigntist terrorist who was convicted of kidnapping and murder by strangulation of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte in 1970." This is heavily biased and uses vague labels such as "terrorist sovereigntist" to first define a political figure. This article as a whole should be reviewed. --Zukiellan (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced "terrorist" by "militant" along with a pointer to a news article from the french state-owned media station that can be quoted as designating him as such. While other newspapers (like The Gazette) do designate him as a "terrorist" in their eulogy, I do not think they should be considered as a neutral source here, as they are widely known in Québec to be hostile to the sovereignty movement. For the record,, do not designate Paul Rose as a terrorist either. --TheAnarcat (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
So it seems that people here are adamant at remembering Paul Rose as a terrorist or picturing the actions of the FLQ as terrorism. The word, according to wikipedia itself, is emotionnally loaded, and the definition is "controversial". It is especially controversial in Québec, where the view on the FLQ differs wildly from which side of the language divide you stand. Repeatedly treating Rose as a terrorist here without substanciated claims is pure flamebait and should stop. --TheAnarcat (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It is loaded not on the linguistic divide, but on the moral divide. Killing, kidnapping, and acts of violence and intimidation are terrorist acts. It has nothing to do with speaking French or English. It has to do with presenting the subject from a whole world perspective, not a local perspective. Using "neutral" wording to report on a historical figure, or situation, in order to not reopen or "dwell" on past wounds is somewhat revisionist history, and a good way to move forward. It does not change the facts. Lets hope that the "militants" on both sides have learned from the past, so that history does not repeat. The important thing is a> is there need for a disambiguation, and if so is "Political figure" the correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talkcontribs) 20:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

October 1970 Crisis[edit]

Please stop undoing my edits to the cited events' year of occurrence. Check the link to the CBC story. It's the "October 1970 Crisis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

responsability of the death of Pierre Laporte[edit]

I have removed the following passage from the article:

Later evidence would prove the contrary. "A coroner’s inquest soon after the murder determined that Laporte had been strangled by a gold religious medal he wore around his neck. In a conversation wiretapped by police, Rose even admitted to his lawyer that he “finished” Laporte with the gold chain."[1][unreliable source?]

I have tried to find a secondary source for this claim, and the only one I could find also mentions quikcly that "The police officer who recorded the conversation told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Rose may have made the statement to cover up for another cell member."[2] I believe this is reason enough to remove the section, according to Template:Verify_source, which says "If it is doubtful and potentially harmful, move the information to the talk page and ask for a source". --TheAnarcat (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A New York Times article also repeats a similar detail as the national post quote here [1]. I would say that should be enough for us, as Wikipedia editors. Mattnad (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight, what is being said here is that he admitted (confessed) to doing the deed, and that confession is being second guessed by speculation from some cop that he was covering for others, and because of this speculation we should not even include the confession in the article? Reminds me more or less of "selective memory", what is wrong with including his admission of guilt and the speculation that it was false? Are we not supposed to be unbiased, and be as complete as possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talkcontribs) 18:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paul Rose (political figure). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)