Talk:Rod Coronado

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

Confused[edit]

I find this article very confusing. He was arrested in February 2006 for having demonstrated an incendiary device in 2003. He was imprisoned, is that right, presumably on remand? In September 2006, he sent people an open letter from his cell. In March 2007, he was released (but why if he was on remand?). In 2007, date unknown, his case went to trial. In September 2007, the judge declared a mistrial. Nevertheless, he then pleaded guilty (but why, if there was a mistrial?). In March 2008, he was sentenced to a year and a day.

Is the above all for the same offence? SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He plead guilty because they threatened to retry the case. My memory is that his imprisonment in 2006 was not for the incendiary demo but for another charge - possibly related to a mountain lion hunt sabotage in Arizona. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. He also faced charges for possession of eagle feathers, but that may have been dropped when he plead guilty. - N1h1l (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I didn't know they'd threatened to retry it. SlimVirgin talk|edits 16:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the deal was that he plead guilty or they would try him for a similar offence in Arizona. Since he presumably gave the same speech at a demonstration there. Rockpocket 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Correction: they were going to charge him in Washington DC, as part of the deal they dropped that and pending charges on an unrelated case in Arizona. Rockpocket 17:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Involvment with PETA?[edit]

Is anyone going to talk about his involvement with PETA and him receiving money in exchange for firebombing a lab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.174.23 (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There was huge involvement with PETA during and after this terrorist act. Problem is they'll just keep removing it from the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.120.11 (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If you call it animal rights activism, you can get away with terrorism. 18.189.110.147 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Another editor is edit warring to include external links that seem to me to violate WP:ELNO [1]. If that other editor can justify why they do not violate it, I'm all ears. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The links are legitimate because they are as close to an "official site" of the subject (Rod Coronado) as he is legally permitted to have. The first (now archived) was maintained by his wife, and the current one (supportrodcoronado.info) is maintained by a friend of the family who is in contact with the subject's legal team. They provide original material about the subject. (The ALF link I just noticed was part of Tryptofish's changes -- that I have no defense for.) It is not uncommon for activists' support pages to be included in their external links.--Introspector (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for answering here. And I'm glad that we at least partially agree, about the ALF link (appropriate for Animal Liberation Front, but not here). I've looked at both sites, taking into account what you explained here, and here is what I think. Both sites can, as you say, be at least in part regarded as "official" sites of the subject. However, they are both set up, and indeed titled, as sites seeking financial and other support for Coronado. Although they provide information about factual material, such as news developments in the legal proceedings, they are principally set up to solicit money (and there are already plenty of other external links to interviews with the subject). The news developments can be easily sourced to secondary sources, and the websites tend to fall under WP:ELNO number 11 in the way they present the information. Importantly, the support-seeking aspects of the sites fall under WP:ELNO numbers 4 and 5. Using the example given in the policy, although there are certainly lots of websites that sell mobile phones but also contain interesting information about mobile phones, the article about mobile phones does not link to them, because they seek money, regardless of the information that they also contain. When WP:ELOFFICIAL allows certain official websites on biography pages, these are normally of persons who provide information about themselves, not sites like these, that are set up by their supporters to ask for help. The effect of allowing these external links on this page is to use Wikipedia to advertise for support for a cause. I still think they need to be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Introspector, the rule for using self-published websites in BLPs is whether they're under the control of the subject. Whether they also exist to ask for donations is irrevelant; if that were the rule we'd have to remove sites like Save the Children. The second consideration is whether they include personal comments about third parties; see our BLP policy for our approach to sources about living persons -- the basic rule is no self-published sources about other people. Some commentary is okay (Prosecutor X did this, and he shouldn't have), while other comments would not be okay (here is Prosecutor X's photograph and home address). But if the site is primarily offering information about Coronado, and if it's under his control and isn't being used to host personal criticism of other living people, then I see no reason not to use it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The sites seem to me to be offering summaries of information that is also available from other sources, and whether they are under Coronado's control is a matter of parsing, since he is imprisoned, and strictly speaking they are controlled by his supporters. Given that, the interpretation about donations seems dubious to me in this particular instance. These are websites that exist primarily to solicit money, and secondarily provide information, available elsewhere, in order to more effectively solicit money. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that the page is also being revised, a possible work-around just occurred to me. Perhaps there is a way to use these websites as inline citations, instead of as external links. If we can justifiably do that, I wouldn't be concerned about the donation issues. It's just as ELs that it strikes me as a WP:EL issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that these sites do not exist primarily to raise money. The old site is certainly not for that -- the domain has been pirated and the old site now exists only on archive.org and is most certainly not trying to raise funds. It has *tremendous* primary source material in it that is not in fact available elsewhere -- at least not obviously so -- including personal messages from Rod via his wife. The new site mentions financial support among numerous other ways people can contribute, and it also promises to provide updates about the subject's circumstances, which I do not see being provided by other resources. As for your workaround, Tryptofish, I wouldn't normally be inclined to try to work sources into citations just to get the links. I did add a sentence noting the date Coronado entered prison, which I don't think was reported by other sources already cited. For what it's worth, I do think both of these sites offer significant value to the Wikipedia readership in exactly the way external links are intended. My original intent was to correct a bad link that has existed in this article for years (the original supportrod.org site, now defunct), and it was in the process of doing so that I realized the new site could be added just as the old site had been. I even copied and pasted the code from the old link, then altered it.--Introspector (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
What I saw at the older site was a PayPal link right at the beginning. Perhaps the way these links appear is in the eye of the beholder, in which case the most productive thing for us to do would be to get advice from other editors, especially those with experience in external links. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────With that need for advice from other editors in mind, I am posting a request at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. For editors who are new to the page, the two links that we are discussing are these:

  • SupportRod.org, a website set up by Coronado's supporters following his February 2006 arrest; now archived only.
  • SupportRodCoronado.info, a website set up by Coronado's supporters following his 2010 reimprisonment.

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish.--Introspector (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The majority of the items in the EL section should be slowly migrated to the references or furtherreading sections. Of the two specific links in question, the archived site would be best used as a reference, and the currently active site could remain as a suitable EL per SlimVirgin's rationale. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiddity, thanks very much for the fresh eyes. Perhaps I reacted too much to the fundraising component, so I'll certainly go with consensus here. Introspector and others: I really would, though, like to see the archived site used instead as an inline citation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Quiddity for chiming in. And thanks Tryptofish for helping work this out so congenially. I'd love recommendations for getting the archived site linked as a reference instead of an EL. (I still think it has exceptional interest value as an EL or FR link, because of all the original source material from the subject's wife, but I realize that's not really a criterion for inclusion as an EL, right?)--Introspector (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Taking a cue from your own comment, I'd say take a look at that material from his wife, find one or more facts that are relevant to the account of his life, and add those facts to the page, sourced to the website. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Eco-Terrorist[edit]

An edit I made included adding "eco-terrorist" to the attributes/descriptions of Coronado. If anyone has a problem with this, provide a good reason.