Talk:Isabel do Carmo

Mauritania

The paragraph about the freight train in Mauritania is not relevant to the article because there was no evidence that Carmo was involved. She was in prison at the time. The same para, more or less, appears in the article on Brigadas Revolucionárias, which is wikilinked from this article. That should be sufficient. Roundtheworld (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• "There was no evidence that Carmo was involved", says who? What is the source ?
• I think this is very relevant to this specific article on Carmo. While it is true that Carmo always portraited herself against lethal and indiscriminate the fact is that she also said that she carried explosives but was not the one that detonated them, but she would have liked to have done it. ("Transportei explosivos, mas o ato final não fiz. Gostava de ter feito". In 1973 she took part in the Capela do Rato explosions who ended up with one child loosing one eye and another child loosing several fingers from one hand. With time BR, the movement she founded and led got increasingly violent. This was the first BR action intentionally meant to cause deaths. Isabel do Carmo denied knowledge of this terrorist attack. But the attack, the BR and how some members ended up joining the FP25 is part of her live story. I am not saying she was involved, I am also not saying she was not, because I have no sources for any of those statements, but I am saying that the events are connected with the movement she founded and with her life story.
• You should use the Bold, revert, discuss guidelines. You were bold in trying to delete the paragraph, and that is fine, but you were reverted, so you should discuss, and not insisting on deleting without getting to any consensus on the discussion --J Pratas (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Despite Mauritânia attack has happened while Isabel do Carmo was held in prison, both she and Antunes continued to be PRP/BR formal leaders and managed jointly with Antunes both PRP and BR. This s confirmed by several interviews to newspapers at the time. There are several sources saying BR made the attack. One is mentioned in the references - a paper from an academic: "From the armed struggle against the dictatorship to the socialist revolution: the narrative restraints to lethal violence among radical left organisations in Portugal". Perspectives on Terrorism. Institute of Security and Global Affairs (ISGA) of Leiden University’s (6): 139–151. ISSN 2334-3745.. As so, in terrorism crimes trials, the laws both condemn who made the attacks as well as the leaders of the organization behind it. Mcbranco (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"There was no evidence that Carmo was involved", says who? What is the source ? Well, she was in prison. But what evidence is there that she was involved?Roundtheworld (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the article should be limited to specific information about Carmo and that detailed information about all of the BR attacks should appear in the BR article. As an example, the article on Mohamed Atta describes his background and life but actually says very little about the 9/11 attacks, which are all covered in other articles. That should apply also to this article. Roundtheworld (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Crimes can be organized from inside a prison. See Pablo Escobar and many others. So the argument, "well, she was in prison", doesn't really hold. There are no sources saying she did it and no sources saying she did not. But there are sources saying that the BR, a terrorist organization founded and led by Carmo, did it. I read the article on the terrorist Mohamed Atta, I see a full long section, with five long paragraphs describing the details of the 9/11 attack. I am sorry but I dont agree with the arguments and I dont agree with the deletion. And there is at least another editor also not agreeing. J Pratas (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The source cited states:"Most of the PRP leadership, who were in prison for bank robberies, deny knowledge of this action, sustaining that it was carried out by a splinter group that went on to start the FP25, and that they would have never approved it as it contravened BR’s position against lethal and indiscriminate violence.[47] Nonetheless, one of the former militants involved in the action affirmed that the PRP leadership knew about it and did not oppose it.[48] We are unable to say with certainty which version of events is closest to the truth. What this does indicate, however, is that within the PRP/BR the question of the type of actions to engage in was always on the table and over time some militants rebelled against the narratives of restraint on lethal violence." I do not believe this in any way provides justification for this information to be provided here. It's OK for the article on the BR but not here. You are making Carmo guilty by association. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an important terrorist attack, and according to the source, perpetrated by an organization founded and led by Carmo. At that time she was in prison. She denied any involvement. Nonetheless, one of the former militants involved in the action affirmed that the PRP leadership knew about it and did not oppose it. This is what we know from the sources, and it should be in this article, well sourced. What is not acceptable Roundtheworld is to try to remove this fact and paragraph from the article based on your personal interpretations, and saying things like "well, she was in prison" so it should not be in the article.J Pratas (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible BLP issue or vandalism

Can anyone explain me why each time i do an edit, only at Isabel do Carmo page, am I automatically considerer a potential vandal or having a BLP issue. For each new information, i am editing, I always adding two or three independent and credible sources like newspapers, books or academic studies. Is that because i am adding 1000 characters? because i am using edit mode instead of source mode? because sometimes I´ve changed entire paragraph (in order to turn coherent and legible)? Mcbranco (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Capela do Rato

Please point me to the text in the sources cited that say this attack forced her to go underground. Roundtheworld (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Roundtheworld, this is not something controversial. It is mostly base on Carmo's own testimonial."São os acontecimentos da Capela do Rato que levam Isabel do Carmo para a clandestinidade " see for instance [1]

Thanks. I have added the citation. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see comments below under SUPERFLUOUS INFORMATION.Roundtheworld (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Why was the citation I added to support the contention that Carmo went underground because of Capelo do Rato removed? Roundtheworld (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I am a little bit puzzled with this dispute of neutrality. Carmo was indisputably the founder and a leader of a terrorist organization. She always admitted that she had carried out bombs although she says she was not the one that detonated the bombs (but would have loved to have detonated the bombs, she also says). Carmo is catalogued in the bible of terrorism "Political terrorism : a new guide to actors and authors, data bases, and literature". There are many other sources that label Carmo as a terrorist. See for example the documentary "El ocaso del terrorismo en Europa" financed by Canal Sur, Euskal Telebista y Telemadrid and directed by Jorge Martínez Reverte e Mario Onaindia, where Carmo is interviewd, side by side with Teo Uriarte (ETA), Cathal Goulding (IRA oficial), Alberto Franceschini y Oreste Escarzone (Brigadas Rojas), Astril Proll (RAF), Oliver Rollin (Gauche Proletarienne) and Carlos Antunes (BR). How come can someone really say she is not a former terrorist. J Pratas (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have just had a quick look at FBI Most Wanted Terrorists. As far as I can see, none of the Introductions to the articles about the people listed here directly state that "he is (or was) a terrorist". They use terms such as "is wanted for terrorist activities", "was the leader of such and such organization", "is alleged to have carried out terrorist activities", etc. Thus it seems that the Wikipedia convention is for people not to be labelled directly as "terrorists". Saying that she was a founding member of a terrorist organization seems to me sufficient, although even that may be disputed by some. Roundtheworld (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Carmo, founded a terrorist group. She led PRP/BR and planed (joint with others) attacks, bank robberies, etc. She stored and transported bombs and explosives, who was sorry not to have detonated them . I don´t think calling her terrorism is any subjective qualification. Mcbranco (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not disputing any of the above apart from the last sentence. Please read WP:NPOV. There it is clearly stated that "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." The people on the FBI list are, arguably, all responsible for many more deaths than you could attribute to Carmo but, as I said, not one is described as a terrorist in the introductions to their articles. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Roundtheworld I beleive wikipedia rules also alerts for the need of respecting others views, reinforced by the fact , when they are supported on precise references. You have been erasing parts of my text, without following wikipedia rules : agree, be consensual.You erase without even presenting any alternative version. That happen on what's regard lethal assassinations from PRP/BR (at least 3), the 1000 G3 given to Carmo and Antunes, the evolution from PRP/BR to FP-25, merger PRP and BR, etc. The version on the text is not correct and induce interpretation erros. I ve already corrected several issues, with precise and detail sources. I would ask if you have a different version please present it here without erasing it with an subjective and personal view. Mcbranco (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Roundtheworld you have previously cited as an example the article Mohamed Atta and in that article Mohamed Atta is introduced as "an Egyptian terrorist hijacker and the ringleader of the September 11 attacks", it does not say that Mohamed Atta was an architect. Now, Carmo is notable for having been the founder and the leader of a terrorist organisation, not for having been a doctor or a university professor. Having said this for me it is perfectly fine if the article introduces Carmo as the founder and the leader of the terrorist org, Brigadas Revolucionarias instead of simply saying that she was a terrorist. I am going to change the text, do let me know if you agree with the changes. J Pratas (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. Roundtheworld (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The difference between Carmo and Atta is that she is still alive.Roundtheworld (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Roundtheworld, have in mind that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is introduced in Wikpedia as "a Kyrgyz-American terrorist Tsarnaev was convicted of perpetrating the Boston Marathon bombing" and he is still alive. J Pratas (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Roundtheworldand @JPratas Please be aware you should also add Carmo´s role on creating and leading PRP. Despite both organizations live on dependence of each other, it´s important to mention it as PRP was giving political support to BR. If you agree, I an add it. Mcbranco (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. --J Pratas (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Superfluous information

I have been deleting recently introduced text that appears to me to be superfluous. The family background of the children injured at the Capela do Rato seems to me to provide unnecessarily detailed information. If 20 people were injured would you provide all of their family circumstances? People getting injured are people, wherever they come from. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Due the number of reverts that information had, you should have been wating for a consensus before deleting it. The source, where this information is coming from, believes the parents occupation is relevant. In my opinion is relevant because the victims belong to the working class, a social group that Isabel do Carmo claimed to defend against bourgeois oppression. The fact of not having apologized, also seems relevant, because Isabel do Carmo only recently acknowledged the existence of those victims. Never before has I Carmo or Antunes referred to the "Capela do Rato" attacks as having victimized people, much less children, Therefore, I will restore the original information, I ask you not to revert it again. I also ask you to propose an alternative text instead. In the meantime we must also wait for the inputs and @JPrates, author of the original text. Thank you for your comment. Regards Mcbranco (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:Writing better articles, in particular the sections headed "News style or persuasive writing" WP:PERSUASIVE and "Stay on topic" WP:OFFTOPIC. My aim is not to push a particular viewpoint as suggested by User:JPratas (see Article History) but only to ensure that the quality of the article meets Wikipedia requirements.Roundtheworld (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

May I suggest that you translate pt:Vigília da Capela do Rato and link to that from this article?Roundtheworld (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Roundtheworld, I don't think that mentioning the victim's names, nationalities, ages etc.. can be considered as superfulous. Dehumanisation is a by-product of terrorism. Today's generally accepted counter terrorism strategy is dual. While terrorists are dehumanised through a portrayal that strips them of uniquely human traits, the victims of terrorism receive the opposite treatment. See [[2]] and that is why the academic source mentioned the victims using names, age, professions, etc... Humanizing the victims allows the reader to have a better understanding of the outcomes of the terrorist acts. J Pratas (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

See for instance articles Casualties of the September 11 attacks and List of fatal victims of the September 11 attacks where an effort was made to humanize the victims by providing detailed information on each and everyone of them. J Pratas (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@JPratas Yes. But this info does not appear in the articles about the individual perpetrators.Roundtheworld (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Why all this fuss about a short sentence? "The father was a gardener and the mother was an illiterate maid." ? Even if you think it is superfluous it should not make much difference because it is very short. Unless the reason for deleting this is another, other than superfluous. I could understand a quarrel if you would say, not true, or unsuorced, arguable, etc.. but superfluous? Really? for just a few words? And by the way, there are many biographies of perpetrators where the victims are identified. There is no such thing as a guideline saying that in bios of terrorists one should not mention a few facts about the victims.J Pratas (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:PERSUASIVE. Avoid "various kinds of appeals to emotion". Which this clearly is. Roundtheworld (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Again, I ask that you look at WP:OFFTOPIC.Roundtheworld (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've read WP:OFFTOPIC but as I have tried to explain, both I and the source think the information is relevant. In fact the source adds a lot more information on the aftermath of live of the victims that was not included here. At the time the source was published the victims were still alive, living humble lives, facing medical problems related with the bomb. J Pratas (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Roundtheworld This is not a side topic. It´s a relevant part of Carmo life and legacy. Being part of PRP/BR is core on Carmo ´s life. You can´´t erase Carmo acts and its consequences. In any case we are far below the recommend 50 000 maximum number of characters to even consider to cur it from the main text. Mcbranco (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

What goes in an article should depend on its relevance. 50,000 words is a recommended maximum, not a target to be achieved by including unnecessary or irrelevant information.Roundtheworld (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I dont think it is irrelevant, and we are talking about less than ten words. You can also open and Rfc if you want and see what other editors think about that. J Pratas (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)