Talk:Lori Berenson/Archive 1

Terrorist or not?

"Berenson's lawyers argued that she had no prior knowledge of the planned attack, and that she believed that the information she gathered for an article on the Peruvian Congress would be used by the guerrillas to form a political party."

• I just wanted to comment on the above. This lady was associated with a terrorist group that later attacked the Japanese embassy in Peru and took hostages for many days. I just imagine an Al Qaeda terrorist caught after 9/11 with maps, drawings and other information about the Twin Towers, having a lawyer that would state in court that the terrorist "believed that the information he gathered for an article on the Twin Towers would be used by Bin Laden to form a political party". I wonder what would the U.S. public say... --AAAAA 23:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Ms. Berenson was CONVICTED of TERRORISM charges in a CIVIL court in a DEMOCRATIC country. Maybe she is not a terrorist. Maybe she is a very nice naive person that was brain washed by the terrorists or maybe she really believed they were not terrorists. Maybe she knew everything but now she is a very nice person and she's not a terrorist anymore. Who knows. But I think it is not up to me or you to be above what a civil court in a democratic country decided. From what I understand, if a person is convicted of terrorism under a civil court and in a democratic country, then that person is a terrorist. That applies for Lori Berenson or for a member of Al Qaeda (example: Zacarias Moussaoui). If Berenson was convicted in a non-democratic country, such as Cuba, then you can state she is a political prisoner. I would agree 100% with you. But please do not make a judgment on what YOU think when the facts show the contrary.
  • It was NOT remotely a democratic country when she was tried, you freaking moron. Also, you pathetic brainless piece of shit, it was not a "civil trial" but a military tribunal. Without any access to an attorney and with a gun literally pointed at her head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.98.41 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a POV, stating that if she has been "convicted in a non-democratic country," &c., &c. It makes a particular assumption about what "democracy" is and makes the larger assumption that "democracy" is good and intrinsically valid. You might believe this, but it is a POV, and one that has no place in Wikipedia. And calling Peru "democratic" at the time of her original conviction by the hooded tribunal is a total joke. It was basically a complete dictatorship. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This comment by Daniel Boyer demonstrates how TWISTED his (or her) mind is. First of all, if "democracy" is not valid, then WHAT IS? Maybe he (or she) thinks that the world should be dominated by crooks, terrorists, criminals, dictators or any other kind of low-lifes, imposed by violence instead of by voting? Democracy might not be the utopian best, but it definitely is valid and intrinsically good. I think Mr. (or Ms) Boyer's TOTALLY POV editions should be removed from Wikipedia. Peru, wheter Mr. (or Ms) Boyer likes it or not, was ruled by an DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT. His (or her) view of Peru as a complete dictatorship DEMONSTRATE his TOTALLY POV TWISTED VISION of the world.--AAAAA 17:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It is not a question of either of our POVs. Assuming that "democracy is valid", or asking "if 'democracy' is not valid, then WHAT IS?" is valid for a college bull session, a debating society, editorials or letters to the editor in a newspaper, even possibly a revolution, &c., &c., &c., but is still a POV and as such should be the basis of what are supposed to be NPOV articles in Wikipedia. You should read the guidelines and policies. Moreover, in general the understanding is that a democracy involves more than a "DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT," and particularly when he shutters Congress, which was full of "DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES," that might be called into question. However, none of these observations are relevant to the article. The article where it deals with controversial issues, which this article obvious would and will, should contain accurate and sympathetically-written presentations of the opposing POVs regarding an issue while enshrining neither of them as the governing spirit of the article. And who is this "Mr. (or Ms) Boyer"? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • If "Daniel C. Boyer" is not a Mr. or Ms., then what is he/she/it? An animal? An object? An Alien from outer-space? I don't get the question.--AAAAA 05:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Do you even know what the word "Mr." means? You are aware that people have styles other than "Mr.," "Miss," "Mrs." and "Ms.," right? --Daniel C. Boyer 13:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Sorry. I am an ignorant idiot.
              • Admitting it's the first step. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
            • You (Boyer) are an all-knowing master-of-the-universe protector-of-all-terrorists. You know better. I concede.--AAAAA 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Just by reading his responses, in my opinion, Mr. Boyer is trying to IMPOSE HIS POV in everything, including the way Wikipedia should be written. I believe that this article already had input from both sides (supporters & opponents) and doesn't need Mr. Boyer's EXTREME POV comments to make the article be tilted his way.--AAAAA 05:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I would suggest sticking to Daniel and AAAAA as we are quite informal. What exactly is the problem? SqueakBox 14:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
          • The way Wikipedia should be written is already the subject of policies and guidelines. I've not seen any "EXTREME POV" edits to the article other than yours. Saying that the PCP claimed (and note that I'm not taking a position on such claim, which may be true and may be false) that, at least in part, the casualties they caused in Miraflores were the result of the explosives they were transporting accidentally going off, noting the apology to Miraflores; these are facts, not an "extreme POV." By all means, if you see fit, include (without my objection!) an observation that many in Miraflores did not believe it was an accident, that many said there was not justification for it, that many people rejected the apology. Qualify it in any way you want along those lines. But if you are saying the inclusion of facts qualifies as a POV, I'm saying that the antidote to facts that do not fully express the truth is more facts. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Using Boyer's same way of thinking, why don't we put in Al Qaeda's article that 911 was some "accident" and Osama Bin Laden might not be guilty (same as he saying for Berenson or Shining Path or Abimael Guzman)? Maybe evertying that happened was an "accident".--AAAAA 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)--AAAAA 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
              • This response ignores (and so clearly I suspect the ignoring may be deliberate) what I've written. Who claims September 11, 2001 was an accident? Let's accept that this claim had any credibility (after all, it's much more incredible for two airplanes to fly into the World Trade Center, given how far it's out of any flight path, &c., &c. than for unstable explosives to accidentally go off during transport, but that aside); is bin Laden saying this? No, he is not. Seriously, has anyone made this claim? If they have, it (the claim that September 11, 2001 was an accident) might be included in the article along with who has made the claim, so long as due emphasis is placed on how minoritarian this view is, along with arguments as to why it is so unlikely it was an accident. The same approach should be taken with respect to Miraflores. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• I think that YOU are trying to impose YOUR beliefs on the article. In some way or another, every Wikipedian writes in the way they believe to be the truth. Some are highly POV and others try to be "neutral". I think we all agree that having the most neutral article would be the best for Wikipedia. But in this particular case, this lady was convicted of TERRORISM by a CIVIL COURT in a DEMOCRACTIC society. Maybe she is not a maniacal brute crazy terrorist like Osama Bin Laden, but still seems to me to be a terrorist. I would ask you, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER the THRESHOLD for somebody to be considered a terrorist? We would all agree that somebody that has taken part in bombing a civilian target is definitely a terrorist.

• • No. If it is done in the context of an armed conflict (given, generally speaking, that the bombing is either deliberate or is done with carelessness) the person is a war criminal, not a terrorist. Do you think the designation "war criminal" is so positive that we have to call war criminals "terrorists"? Give me a break. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes but there was no arfmed conflict in Peru there was a war against terror, and Berenson wasn't a soldier she was either a terrorist or supporting terrorists. if you thionk it was an armed conflict (between which governments?) please source abundantly, SqueakBox 13:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• But what about somebody that was involved with a terrorist organization, but did not yet take part in such bombing? To give you an example, if a person today is convicted of being associated with Al-Qaida in the financial aspect. Has not planed or taken direct part in a bombing, but is in charge of paying other terrorists salaries or whatever. Is this person a terrorist? I think yes. What do YOU think?--AAAAA 14:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I would agree that someone who is involved in financing, if done with the knowledge of what the activities will be, is a terrorist. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you should read Category:Terrorists, especially the part about the category only being for those who "personally used terrorist tactics" and "have admitted to or endorsed violence against civilians...the use of terrorist tactics should be well-documented and undisputed." [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:57, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I am completely astonished after reading this article. I almost feel sorry for this "confused and naive" American travel overseas. But since I am Peruvian and have lived in Peru during the worst days of terrorism I cannot but think this article has not been drafted with any neutrality whatsoever. Ms. Berenson was not helping "revolutionaries" in the Hollywood style. MRTA is a terrorist group, not only because of the attack to the Japanese residence in Lima in 1997 but also because from 1988 it performed several terrorist acts including kidnapings and has worked closely to the narcotrafic in the Amazonic area of Peru. Lori Berenson rented and lived in the MRTA headquarters. there was a in the second floor on that house. During the investigation she never actually proved she has acted as journalist, because none of her work was published. After she was tried by amilitar court the Interamerican Court demanded that the Peruvian Government give her a new trial. She has a second trial and was convicted againm, and now the Interamerican Court has confirmed the second decision. I am quite sure that if a Peruvian would have been caught in similar circumstances (helping Al-Qaeda) she would have been given the death penalty. So please, stop feeling sorry for your fellow American and think a little bit more of all the people that Ms. Berenson has damaged by their actions, by helping terrorists of a land she did not know.

This is beside the point. Wikipedia articles should stick to documented facts and be written from a neutral point of view. Factual evidence belongs in the article. Opinions and biased language do not.

The article should not say that LB is a terrorist, nor should it say that she is not a terrorist. It should report whatever pertinent facts are available. On disputed points, it should cite the different points of view and the evidence for and against them. Tualha 21:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with AAAA that Mr. Boyer who has extreme views. Also ood to see that Lori will serve out here full term.

Better category

I'm glad Neutrality decided to start a new category for political prisoners according to AI. That's a LOT better than "political prisoners" with no qualifier, because AI is thought by many to have an agenda beyond simply "fighting for human rights" that spills over into the political realm. Note their rudimentary work on North Korea and their constant complaining about a few high-profile American cases.

Even if you think AI's always great, the category is better, though. In my opinion.

• I now agree with Neutrality about Lori Berenson not being in the Terrorists category because she did not use violence. I have created a new category that I think better suits her: Category:People convicted on terrorism charges. I think this category can apply to many notable people that have been affiliated with terrorist organizations and did not commit violent crimes. For example: Financiers of terrorist organizations, planners of terrorist crimes, support/accessory people that were involved with terrorists but did not directly commit terrorism, etc. Hope it's agreeable to all.--AAAAA 23:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rationale for minor edit

Since this has been a somewhat contentious page, I feel the need to rationalize even a relatively minor edit. The heading "Efforts to free Lori" is almost inherently POV. It is even arguably sexist. Using a familiar first name, especially with regard to a female, seems like an almost inherently sympathetic expression. It is especially true with American English-derived names, where there is an obvious knowledge to Westerners of which name is the personal one and which is familial. Now I'll sound sexist myself and say that "efforts to free Lori" sounds much more sympathetic than "efforts to free OJ" or "efforts to free Bobby (Blake)" sounds, even though I would say that the latter ones should be unacceptable as well (but I also think that they would be less likely to be used by someone attempting to write a serious article in fairly formal English). On the whole, though, I feel that this has become a very good page on a fairly contentious issue. The categorization has been vastly improved. Whether or not someone is a "political prisoner" just because Amnesty International says they are is inherently POV (the POV being that of Amnesty International); whether or not someone has been declared such by that organization is objective fact, much like the fact that the "terror alert level" in the U.S. at the time of this writing as declared by the U.S. government is "yellow"; whether that can or should mean anything about how life is conducted, or is even a vaild concept, is subject to interpretation. Rlquall 12:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Some of it is pretty irrelevant too, such as the initial Amnesty International complaints about her first trial, since she got a second, open, public trial that AI admitted satisfied its original concerns.

A giant mess

This page is a mess. AAAAA's original version seemed like a POV piece aiming to justify her conviction. The current version is even worse; it now reads like a rebuttal of the original, and is at least as POV. Take this passage, for example:

Lori was arrested along with her photographer, who Berenson was later surprised to find out was not a Bolivian citizen named Rosa, but in fact Nancy, a Peruvian citizen and the wife of Nestor Cerpa (the leader of the MRTA).

How are we supposed to know that she was surprised by this? A claim like that needs to be substantiated. Even worse is this:

Due to her tone and attitude, her words sounded like a radical political diatribe, instead of the brave words of a frightened 26-year-old woman as they were meant to be.

Somebody needs to go over this article with a bit NPOV brush. I'd do it, but I don't know the first thing about her. Isomorphic 19:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I concur. The bit you cite is totally from LB's POV. And how about these choice bits of text?

"...instead of the brave words of a frightened 26-year-old woman as they were meant to be."

"...these were not the words of a cold-blooded revolutionary, but the heartfelt words of a lifelong activist for justice..."

As well as several instances where the Peruvian government is called "Peru". This desperately needs an NPOV rewrite by someone familiar with the subject. Tualha 21:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I just reverted the extremely POV rewrite by some anonymous user. Also, I would like to explain why this sentence is important: "Due to her tone and attitude, her words sounded like a radical political diatribe". Maybe the sentence can be re-written, but it is important because most Peruvians remember her by exactly that particular appearance. The media played the video clip showing Lori DEFIANT and SUPPORTIVE of the terrorists, over and over. If Lori in fact was totally innocent and didn't know that her friend were MRTA, the peruvian public would have expected to hear a Lori stating: "I am innocent, I didn't know there were MRTA, this is a mistake". Instead, they heard Lori making statements in support of the MRTA (at least that is what everybody understood). So, aside from what the courts decided, the impression left in most peruvians' minds was that she knew she was helping the MRTA, and therefore she was a terrorist.--AAAAA 04:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I have left the comment in about how the Peruvian people saw her speech it seems to me very clear that her speech was a political diatribe, and I am not convinced we necessarily need to point out the obvious to our readers, SqueakBox 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This page remains a mess. While I've gone over it and taken out some of the most POV stuff, it reads like a debating society. I suggest a rewrite, trying to stick to npov. I may take a shot at it when I have some time.Wehwalt 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I've taken out a lot of the garbage in here and taken out the cleanup notice. If you don't like it, let's talk about it.--Wehwalt 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Treason against the Fatherland

We've been batting about the statement that Berenson was convicted of "treason against the fatherland". Looking at the law, near as I can tell, though my Spanish isn't that good, the same law covers terrorist acts and treason against the fatherland. So I've broadened things a bit in the article.[1]--Wehwalt 21:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for researching this. Good phrasing. (I write to Lori, although I think she's guilty.) Simesa 22:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this, because the law you cited clearly has nothing to do with the Lori Berenson. --Descendall 08:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I just looked it up. The military tribunal convicted her of violating Decree Law 25.659, "traición a la patria." That was vacated. The civilian court found her guilty of violating Decree Law 25.475, "colaboración con el terrorismo." Because both of these laws were simply declared by executive fiat after Fujimori's coup, the legislature didn't write them and thus they don't appear to be on the Peruvian congress' webpage. --Descendall 08:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

The word terrorism is not to be used in describing people on wikipedioa, we cannot make an exceptioon for Berenson, SqueakBox 18:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is in the manual of style (though more pertinent to organizations). However, here we are not calling her anything, but reporting literally and accurately her offense. Respectfully, she was convicted of colloboration with a terrorist organiazation. That may be described.--Wehwalt 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. Its nothing to do with Ms Berenson, I would argue this case with every single living human, see Osama bin Laden as an example, SqueakBox 18:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with the guideline. However, what if we were to (see next section above this one) report her crime in the original Spanish? It is close enough to English that no one should have any trouble with it.--Wehwalt 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism is a cvague and controversial word, we should report the facts, hence I have named the organisation and stated it was illegal. Terrrorism or terrorist is unlikely to lat very long as an introduction on any wikipedia article, SqueakBox 18:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how it shakes out. I think you have to have some indication in the lead paragraph that the MRTA wasn't the Sewing Club, if you get my drift. But we can do without the word "terrorism". We do have to report her convicted offense, though, at some point in the article. Accurately.--Wehwalt 18:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Another edit

The article previously stated both that Berenson got Gilvonio into Congress yet had no idea that Gilvonio was collecting floor plan information and the like, and also that floor plan drawings by Berenson herself were seized in her home. The latter makes the former claim (which is completely unsubstantiated) unlikely at best, so I excised the words "without Berenson's knowledge". Everything else aside, that is at best a very subjective claim that is not only without reference but also refuted by other evidence.

• That was somehow slipped in while we were napping. Good edit.--Wehwalt 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LoriBerenson.jpg

Image:LoriBerenson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Her treatment

Funny how she has gotten such excellent treatment compared to the people held at Guantanamo, many of whom were innocent. She has had at least two trials, had lawyers, her family was notified she was being held and were allowed to visit her three times a year, she knows when she will be released, etc. -PussNBoots 01:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

you say it to blame guantanamo or the always-wrong peruvian penitentiary system? not that funny--Andersmusician VOTE 06:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "excellent" treatment, basically they left her to gangegreen in a 2-mile high prison. No, that adds to up to very cruel and extremely unusual punishment.--rivolad (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I corrected some errors of fact, from an email from Berenson's father. You're welcome to cross-check these, but I think they will be accurate, he seems well-informed and realistic. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It may seem counterintuitive, but Berenson's father's email is not a reliable source, and he has a distinct POV on the case, for obvious reasons! I've reverted some of your edits, and ask you to back them up with reliable sources.[2]may be of some help--Wehwalt 15:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article

I would like to make some observations on this article. However, before I do, I will say that this article was drawn to the attention of the Neutrality Project by an anonymous editor. If any of the registered users on this page logged out in the hopes of receiving support for their views, please let me be the first to assure everyone else that this will not be the case. The Neutrality Project is a small collection of editors who rewrite articles from a NPOV. Bearing that in mind, I do not feel as though I can start any work on this article until the following issues are addressed:

Referencing

This article needs substantial referencing, as well as many inline citations in order to confirm the facts presented. Without appropriate references, editors like myself who have little to no understanding of the article's subject cannot possibly reqrite it without misinterpreting unsubstantiated facts, or dismissing valid ones.

Inherent bias

This article seems to have an inherent bias — Berenson was found guilty after all! This makes it difficult, and I will try to smooth this out after the above issue has been settled.

I'm sorry that I can't quite start work on this article. I simply feel that any attempts by me to rewrite it at the moment may leads to arguments on this page regarding my motives, as well as my knowledge of the article (which I have already confessed to be next to nothing). Once this article has been suitably referenced, please contact me on my talk page, or on the Neutrality Project's page, for a rewrite (I am not watching this page, so a request will need to be resubmitted). Note that my decision is not final; other members of the team may pick this article up if they feel that they are able. _Jame§^ugrono 20:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you do good work. But I am unclear what you are talking about regarding inherent bias. "Berenson was found guilty after all!". Er, what precisely are we expected to do about it?--Wehwalt 19:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Jame has not responded in nearly five months, I'm going to remove the neutrality tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that Rama removing all my comments, which were submitted expressly to render the article more neutral, warrants leaving the Neutrality tag in place. I hope we can resolve this quickly.--rivolad (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that. Can you supply diffs?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"The" plan???

One paragraph of the article, which I include in full for context, is as follows:

"With no training or publication record as a journalist, she obtained press credentials for herself and her photographer to the Congress of Peru. Berenson represented that she was writing articles on the effect of poverty on women in Perú for two now defunct left-leaning New York publications, Modern Times and Third World Viewpoint. Her photographer, Nancy Gilvonio, was actually the wife of Néstor Cerpa, the MRTA second-in-command — although Berenson claims she was unaware of this connection and claimed that she knew her only as a Bolivian photographer. Berenson had entered the main Congress building with Gilvonio several times during 1995 to interview members of Congress. Gilvonio provided the information she collected to the MRTA including detailed information on the floor plans of Congress, its security and members. The plan was for the MRTA to invade the Congress building, kidnap the legislators, and overthrow the legitimate government."

The problem here is the last sentence's starting with the words "The plan was . . .". Whose plan was it??? It is ridiculous to imply whose plan it was by innuendo. If it has been verifiably established whose plan it was, then this should be stated; otherwise this last sentence has no place in an encyclopedia article.Daqu (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What about changing the final sentence to "The MRTA intended to invade . . . ". That leaves open the question of Berenson's complicity and knowledge and contains no implications.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to Seriously Improve the POV

Hi, I just did a moderate edit, not removing any sections just adding a section that brings up the claims that Berenson and her supporters have as to why she is not guilty. I found this infomration wholely lacking in the original, along with that there was kind of a sarcastic tone that I think is inappropriate to the subject. I also added information about her abuse in jail, which was absent.

I apologize that my source for most of this is the Lori Berenson website, but I have contacted them personally to ask them to put in their original references for this material. To user Wehwalt, if you disagree with the information presented please edit it and source your edits instead of just deleting all my new information!

Better yet, help me group the evidence that seems to indicate guilt and the points against guilt into separate sections. Thanks!

Unhappily, it is for you to source anything you wish added to the article. We cannot have claims regarding living people remain unsourced. I'd move quickly, as unhappily I will redelete it unless sourced.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I just did some major editing (hopefully not leaving too many typos in my wake). I reorganized existing material to be in the most applicable sections and in chronological order. I added material and citations (I contacted the Berenson parents to get citations and check on accuracy). I removed phrasing that seemed highly POV. And I tried to make it clear that there is a controversy and represent both sides of that. On one side is the evidence against her. On the other side is her rebuttals, but mostly it is the critique of whether she had a fair trial. I hope this helps us move toward a more balanced and well-cited entry. Grover22 (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've reverted your ridiculously extensive and one-sided changes. Suggest you discuss them here first. Mark Shaw (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we start with "political prisoner" and go on from there. Good reversion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Linking to opinion pieces

WP:EL's "In biographies of living people" section states, "Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline." An opinion piece, by definition, violates the NPOV policy, and therefore the WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MedianOne (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that this website violates WP:BLP how? And since you have not gained consensus for the change, you should leave status quo ante until you do.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem that there needs to be discussion about the removal of the OpEd. The Wikipedia guideline is very clear: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." An OpEd itself is unsourced/poorly sourced and highly POV (arguably potentially libellous) - so it must be removed immediately. Grover22 (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That refers to material in articles, not external links. this is the proper policy. The source appears reputable. I see no potentially libelous material. I think the true objection is WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The site is an op-ed site (it even has the word 'opinion' in its domain name). An opinion site is inherently not NPOV. As I've already pointed out, WP:EL prohibits external links that "contradict the spirit of WP:BLP." The opinion site does "contradict the spirit of WP:BLP" by not maintaining a NPOV. Therefore, the link must not be included.

According to WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." Since you have not done this nor gained consensus for its inclusion, you should leave it out until you do. MedianOne (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. The article has been in there, of long standing. You seek to exclude it. You have the burden of proof to build consensus for your change. You just hoisted yourself by your own petard. The 'spirit of BLP' does not mean maintaining a NPOV. If it contained libelous material, then it violates the spirit of BLP. Still waiting for evidence on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the link to the Varadarajan piece. It's been in the article for a long time, and serves to balance the other external links. Also, those who wish to have it removed have not demonstrated that it is counterfactual, poorly sourced, controversial, libelous, or from an unreliable source. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if people object to it being used as a source we can move it back to the External links section. I simply didn't see any reason for it to be listed in both the References and EL section however. Khoikhoi 23:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it supporting the statement that there are other views on the Berenson question.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay - I see that there's a similar problem with freelori.org. I've removed it from the external links section; of course it can remain in the references list. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(a bit later) I was seriously confused about the two edits by Khoikhoi represented by this diff: [3]. I've self-reverted my response (which was [4]), and tender my apologies to Khoikhoi - I totally misinterpreted what was going on (probably because I was in a hurry, but that's hardly an excuse). Mark Shaw (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No harm, no foul.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

pregnancy status?

Anyone know whether she's given birth yet? From the earlier reports it shoud be pretty close. For example, the "freelori.org" website has this comment from her parents back in Dec, 2008: "Lori's parole date is scheduled for November 2010, when the child will be 18 months old".

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would have been in the news, the fact that it hasn't is pretty clear!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Background Section

Two edits: 1. From reading Wiki info I found "Wiki describes disputes." I think clarifying the dispute at the beginning will help frame the rest of the article. 2. Used wording from the Hayes citation (previous edit did not).Grover22 (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, though I really haven't looked at the Hayes citation. I've moved a brief statement of the dispute to the lede. I think it is enough to state what her supporters think. It would be understood that her detractors think the opposite. I think the idea is that a lot of people don't read beyond the lede, so it is a good idea to have a brief statement of what makes the person notable and the issue in dispute in there. The lede is substandard at present, I'll give it a good going over one of these days. Or you can give it a try and I'll clean up anything that needs it. Either way. We each have our perspective on this case, but the article is gradually improving.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Pre-background: The background itself states she was translator and secretary. And many of her writings have been published. Adding "baker" might even make sense. Grover22 (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the lead section?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Two edits: • Link to Gonzalez went to Ceren page with no explanation of a link between the 2 names. Made Ceren link to Ceren page. • Including that Lori went by "Angelita" seems like an minor detail. Grover22 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Two edits:

• "Irrational violence" had no citation. Not clear those are her actual words.

• "In defending herself says she is not a terrorist and defends MRTA's right to revolutionary action (paraphrasing)" implies that part of defending herself is defending the MRTAs actions as her own. Need to separate and make clear the difference between "defending herself" and discussions of her political beliefs. Grover22 (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Imprisonment Section

I just made two edits: • Factual corrections: Only the first prison she was in was ruled as operated inhumanely. For some reason it said she was moved to Cajamarca in 2002 - it was 2001. • The second was about the hunger strike. The original statement by the prisoners (included in the cited materials) does not mention trying to influence the US, just the Peruvian govt. And, while the hunger strike did not lead to an immediate change in laws, it is unknown if it contributed to a change in the laws less than a year later. Grover22 (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

These edits look fine to me. I'd like to see a cite for the statement that Yanamayo was found to be administered inhumanely - I know there wasn't one previously, so that's not a criticism of your edit, just a suggestion for further improvement. And maybe the cite already exists elsewhere in the article and just needs to be footnoted again here. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(a couple of days later) I have to say that I'm not entirely happy with this change [5] regarding Apari Sánchez. The problematic phrase "political prisoner" is back, without very much in the way of verifiable citation. I'll let it go for the moment, but let's put it on the list of things to look at later.

I will think about rationale and consistency regarding terminology (political prisoner, persons accused of terrorism, persons accused of...). I recognize it was discussed previously.Grover22 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - having reread the previous comments on this issue, my approach would be to avoid terms like "political prisoner" (except when specifically mentioning AIs categorization of her), "terrorist" (ever) "accused of/convicted of terrorism" (except when specifically mentioning the court ruling), etc. I will try to use phrases that specify relationship to the MRTA. Does that seem like a place to start? (see my change to the paragraph on Apari Sanchez) Grover22 (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's better. As you say, it's a bit awkward, but it's neutral - which is what we want. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Just as an aside: is the accent over the 'a' in "Sanchez" correct? My Spanish isn't that good, but I think the accent may be redundant as it's over the penultimate syllable.)

It was already in there with the accent and on the internet it shows up both ways. I believe it is both redundant and acceptable. Grover22 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I do thank you for the cite for Yanamayo being declared "inhuman"; I think you got the actual reference wrong and have corrected it per what I think you probably meant. If I messed that up please feel free to fix it. Mark Shaw (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. My technological skills are not the best. There was an English version (which I was attempting to link to). I will see if that can be found again.Grover22 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have entered the link to the English version. You can remove the Spanish if you wish.Grover22 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should leave the Spanish one in. The English version is probably a translation, and it's also a Word document. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I just edited the list of her public commentaries. It had a section that said her writings advocated against a long list of items. It was misleading - she does not advocate against the US or the US National Guard - she critiques particular issues (such as the poor handling of Katrina - not the existence of the National Guard). I am sorry if any of my links are not technically correct and again appreciate help with that. Grover22 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the current list rather long and somewhat POV. Can we keep it down to say, four items, and phrase things neutrally?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific as to your concern. It is shorter than the previous one and seems less POV. Grover22 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made a couple of small changes here. [6] Any comment? Mark Shaw (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an improvement. I may play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I got the summary of her commentaries back to a previously agreed upon version, but correct me if I am wrong. The previous editor re-introduced old language that was selective for a particular bias. Grover22 (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edit looks fine to me. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt: keep the list down to a few items and phrase neutrally. Grover22 (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved the sentence about her parents campaign to the "Efforts" section and rephrased, since "recruited" has a certain tone to it. I also changed the bakery sentence since she did a lot more than make "fruitcakes."Grover22 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Efforts to Free Berenson

I moved the sentence about the parents campaign to this section and added a general sense of the efforts before going into some of the specifics. I will do more to reorganize it so it has a more logical/readable flow. Grover22 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take care to keep it NPOV. I did make some modifications. The changes you made, no doubt inadvertedly on your part, would leave the reader with the impression that she did not receive a fair trial, and that she was held in inhumane conditions. While I understand that some believe that, we should keep a neutral perspective. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this is controversial - but I removed the Tunku V OpEd. It seems completely inappropriate to use in an article on a living person.

•No data on these points: "Even today, after years in jail, she has more support on the Upper West Side of Manhattan than she does in all Lima." "Civil society would have collapsed, which was one of the central aims of people like Berenson."

• Factual error: "A hardcore Marxist outfit of which she was a member." Berenson was acquitted of membership in the MRTA in the civilian trial.

• Misleading statement, factual error and contextual error: "Berenson virtually handed the case for her conviction, on a platter, to the prosecution. … [s]he faced the cameras and screamed--yes, screamed." Berenson was told to shout from the stage of the large auditorium. She was not given a microphone (nor was she given a speaker as the writer Varadarajan asserted).

• Misleading: "Túpac Amaru, a group whose killings of innocents … were exceeded in volume only by those of the Maoist Shining Path." The 2003 report by Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission held Shining Path accountable for 53% of the 69,000 deaths and disappearances, the Peruvian military and police contributed to 35% of these atrocities, “ronderos” or government-sponsored paramilitary units accounted for 10.5% and the MRTA accounted for 1.5%.

• Opinions: "Jesse Jackson … had the temerity to harangue Mr. Fujimori--a man who saved Peru from a terrorist cataclysm--on the subject of Berenson." President Alberto Fujimori, now awaiting sentence in Peru following a 15-month trial for crimes against humanity. Fujimori was already convicted in 2007 of corruption. He faces other trials following the awaited sentencing.

• Contextual error and unsubstantiated fact: "The Peruvian court found that she abused her press credentials to gain access to the country's Congress." Berenson’s press credentials were legitimate and appropriate, as shown in the civilian trial.

• Unsubstantiated facts: "[T]he group to which she belonged specialized in the taking of innocent human lives." The Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2003 declared MRTA responsible for 1.5% of the atrocities committed during the twenty year period of violence (1980-2000). Berenson has always condemned acts of terrorism in all its forms.Grover22 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Grover22, please try to be more concise in your discussion; it's difficult to follow what you're saying here. In a moment, I'll offer a suggestion for a way to accomplish this on your talk page. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really starting to wonder about the WP:SPA here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - hope it is easier to read now. I would usually not be so long, but the Tunku V piece has come up as an issue before. Thanks for your assistance as I learn the ropes. Grover22 (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the allegations are contradicted does not mean they are untrue. Besides, on WP we do not allow opinion pieces to be cited for the truth of the matters contained therein, we are simply using this one to show that there were opinion pieces opposing Berenson's release. Perfectly appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Grover22 is still a relatively new user here (only about a week). Please also mind WP:BITE. Khoikhoi 06:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all being gentle with Grover22. I'd certainly like to see him branch out into other articles, lest he be considered a WP:SPA.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked up SPA and would agree that at this point I am on Wikipedia (I do deal with another Wiki elsewhere). While that may be of concern to Wehwalt, WP:SPA seems to take a balanced approach to that status. I have appreciated the help I have received, tried to learn as quickly as I can, and bring forward citations. I think we all come with our own POV - and it is a good trait to be willing to consider those different views as we edit (I have certainly accepted word changes when others have felt my edits were POV). I think we have played well together so far and look forward to continuing. Grover22 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why I left the link there, so you would follow it and read the material there, it is more gentle than jumping on your talk page!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph about the Japanese Ambassador's house takeover. It was being implied that the takeover was done primarily in order to free Berenson. She was on the list, but it is unknown if that was a side effect versus the main purpose. The order of the names was assumed to be a "ranking" - but that was never substantiated. Any thoughts? Grover22 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts, Grover, that paragraph is sourced to the Christian Science Monitor. The information you inserted is not contained in the CSM article. Readers must be able to verify information through sourcing. While this article needs more sources, certainly, we try not to make it worse by putting information that is not in a source, in a sourced paragraph, however innocently. I think your great knowledge of this case will be a big benefit to this article, when applied in a NPOV manner and consistent with WP:V. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Grover22 (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

MISC UPDATE: "The Peruvian Supreme Court Tuesday found former President Alberto Fujimori guilty for his role in the massacre of 25 people in 1991 and 1992.

"The three-judge panel sentenced the former president to 25 years in prison, The Washington Post reported...." [7] wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved this to a better spot. By your edit summary, I think you are suggesting this info should be in the article. I don't agree, without some showing it has relevance to Berenson (i.e., not merely to disparage the leader under whose leadership she was convicted).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Activities in Peru and Arrest

Based on the documentation available, I have tried to make the info about her presentation to the media more accurate. Her actual words are available on the Free Lori website, as are the claims of her supporters. The video of the presentation includes no microphones.Grover22 (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lori website is not a reliable source. Please source exclusively to major newspapers' news articles, wire services, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Including phrases like "despite their violent record" in this part when that is established elsewhere and "vehement" seems POV. Adding more info about what she actually said and the fact that there was not a microphone does not seem POV. There has been no citation to show that a microphone was there, or that her supporters say there were, but there is evidence (Schechter) that backs up what I am adding (even excluding the reference to the Lori website if you would like). While the Lori website as a whole is POV, there are many documents available on it that are not. So I do not think we can exclude all documents just because that is the only/easiest way to access them.Grover22 (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is not an RS. If you don't believe me, post at the reliable sources noticeboard. If it is not important enough to be in a newspaper, it isn't worth including. Also note that opinion or commentary pieces, such as the one on commondreams, are not RS. Thanks for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no citation for the microphone statement. I have even looked through old Reuters and NYT articles and have found no reference to a microphone. I just found an article that I think will help: Lori Berenson describes January 96 press presentation, Reuters -- 7 May 2001 by Eduardo OrozcoGrover22 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No objection to taking it out. I do insist that any new material or modification in tone be backed up with reliable souces, newspapers of repute and suchlike. The article could be greatly improved, but it has to maintain a NPOV tone.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrected inconsistency: One paragraph said MRTA planned to kidnap legislators to overthrow the govt, another to exchange them for MRTA prisoners. I believe citations support the second. Grover22 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

lori berenson's civil status

i believe she got married and divorced before coming to live in peru. i have read before that her first husband was also a member of a leftist group or subversive organization (can't remember exactly) in central america where she lived for a while. i was hoping to find that piece of information in this source but apparently it was not included. was it never true? kb -- youcanfindkique@yahoo.com

I have never heard that, and I've been following this case for almost fifteen years. Anything is possible though.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Son's name

I changed it from "Salvador Sánchez" to "Salvador" with edit comment, "Usual convention: kids under 18 listed by first name only(see e.g.Barack Obama; also "Salvador Sánchez" is also incorrect; see discussion page". I decided to cite wikipedia convention (e.g. it's "Sasha" not "Sasha Obama" when listed under "Children" under Barack Obama's entry) because that was the simplest reason to cite and I wasn't sure I could find documentation of the secondary reason (inaccuracy) but I think I just found that as well. Lori's spouse and Salvador's father is listed as "Aníbal Apari Sánchez" and someone seems to have assumed that Apari was the middle name and Sanchez the last name and this editor inferred that Sanchez must be Salvador's last name (putting aside that not all kids are named after father's last name) But in fact Apari is not Anibal's middle name, it's his "first last name "*from Anibal's father) while Sanchez is Anibal's "second last name" (from Anibal's mother). Thus per the naming convention Salvador's name would be "Salvador [then a middle name here] Apari Berenson" Google " "Anibal Augusto Apari Sanchez" 123people lori " (not including the outermost double quotes) and you'll find a listing that mentions (when you clck to got o that page I can't see "augusto" listed inside it the google indexing just mentioned confirms it..plus the peoel123 page shows pictures of Lori etc)..or google ""Anibal Augusto Apari Sanchez" mrta", number of links, especially English language, is relatively small, but enough to confirm) (Just found this in another browser tab: Personality Parade which if you scroll down quotes Lori's father referring to his grandson, "Salvador Anespori Apari Berenson")In any case to avoid detailed documentation, we can just agree to use the first-namep-only for children under 18 anyway, I think..Harel (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. My personal policy, when writing a bio article is to refer to someone by first name until he is aged 18, and after that refer to him by last name, avoiding the solo use of the first name. I do not know if there is a formal policy though. However, there is no harm in listing a kid's full name when it something other than the kid carrying the father's last name. Just to let people know.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Note if/when we do want to list full name despite his being under 18, per Parade article above it should be "Salvador Anespori Apari Berenson" and not with "Sanchez" as Salvador's name had earlier been erroneously listed..Harel (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps put it in the infobox? I don't think there are any privacy concerns, the kid got a fair amount of press both at birth and when Mom was released.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

suggested improvement

Since I have not edited at this article before, aside from a minor copyedit just now, I prefer to suggest a change here first: I think the lead is too long (ie, too much detail for introduction) and somewhat disordered. What she said this year is in the middle of the 2nd paragraph, and earlier dates are mentioned later. There is also probably too much detail about recent events. Well, thats my 2c as a reader. Thanks. El duderino (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free. I don't have time or inclination to improve it. Be bold, and remember that people with divergent views of Berenson are watching ... :)--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Corrections to Designations of MRTA

The first paragraph asserts that MRTA "is" (present tense) a terrorist entity according to Peru, the U.S. State Department (USSD), and the European Parliament. This is on contradiction to the WP article on MRTA itself (linked to) which states MRTA was removed from the U.S. terror list in 2001. Not following the MRTA as much as this article on L. Berenson (and not being a fan of or taking much interest in the MRTA) I had not earlier researched, despite noticing that contradiction. Finally the contradiction prodded me to research, since means misinformed WP readers.

Findings:

1. Research indicates that indeed the WP article on MRTA is correct: MRTA has not been included on the USSD list since 2001, 11 years ago. I found three references documenting this.

2. But I've also discovered that the ref. given in the MRTA article, to CDI (Center for Defense Information) is not currently usable, so these three links will need to replace, rather than supplement, the ref in the MRTA article on WP. I doubt CDI is defunct, but neither their website nor that of their more recent parent group [[8]] works. the latter gives a 404 error, "The page cannot be found". If I have time or someone else does, use the manta link [9] to contact them (202) 332-0900 and inquire about CDI's website; until then, it's a broken and not usable link for MRTA article. For the article on Lori Berenson here, there is no need to remove a CDI link but will add the three links confirming removal in 2001 of MRTA from USSD official list.

Second ref, report by OSAC, Overseas Security Advisory Council created in 1980s as a public/private partnership between the Department of State and private US corporations with a presence overseas [[10]] states USSD removed MRTA from it's "terrorist organizations" list, ref here

Third ref, leaked actual diplomatic cable of May 30 2008 where diplomat states "The State Department removed MRTA from the US list of terrorist organizations in 2001. "(btw adding also "We have little evidence to date that MRTA retains the capability or intent to launch terrorist attacks" and mentions one suspected plot where later, "A judge has dismissed charges against all those accused in this suspected plot")

Ref here

3. Given three refs documenting removal in 2001 from USSD terror list it's perhaps a moot point to analyze the current link "[1]" at unhcr [11] but that 2007 article is not even relevant to the other terror designations (neither Europes's nor Peru's), does not give any information about the classification as terrorist, or otherwise, or any label (then in 2007, or prior or at any time) of the MRTA. It is a report on terrorism in Peru in 2006 (published in 2007). It discusses "the militant Maoist Sendero Luminoso (SL or Shining Path), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization" It also discusses FARC in the same article, and also mentions MRTA in the same article, indeed, but specifically avoid stating that it is "designated...terrorist" or "not designated" despite the former phrase being used in the same article about Sendero. In any case it does not even tell us a date at which MRTA was designated a terrorist group.

Similarly, Spanish language ref, was about intention to put MRTA on a list, intentions rather than what happened.

4. In fact MRTA was indeed designated a USSD terrorist group, in 1997. The publication of this list, was mandated by the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, so this would appear to give the starting date of MRTA's designation since no such list official existed prior to 1997 (see the NY Times article, the paragraphs before the list state this) although, it's conceivable (does anyone know of any?) there were other lesser-known or less widely followed "lists" prior. At the very list, MRTA's designation on this particular State Department list, started exactly in the year 1997. The ref is here

5. As for whether MRTA is designated as terrorist by Peru, I am sure it is, but we need at least one, and preferably, several (like above) reference to document the past and/or starting year, and the present status

6. Designation by Europe. I don't believe it was, and currently is not classified as terrorist; the government of Peru did lobby to have MRTA added, circa 2008, but this effort was unsuccessful, as documented in 1009 report on proceedings of 2008, ref is here showing 2009 official publication listing 47 organization (of which #41 is Sendero) and MRTA not being on that list.

The above is the official documentation, but it's also referred to elsewhere, "the decision by the European Parliament on April 23 not to endorse a motion to add the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru (MRTA) to the European Union's (EU) list of international terrorist groups, as the Peruvian government had sought." notes the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) Adding, "in fact, the MRTA has never been included in the EU's list of international terrorist groups since that list was created in 2001. Nor has it appeared on the U.S. State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations since 2002. The latest U.S. report on terrorism, released April 30, 2008, does not even mention the MRTA in the Peru section" That ref also notes (lest anyone think that the Peruvian Human Rights group APRODEH agreed with MRTA) that APRODEH "was clear that its advice against adding the MRTA to the list of terrorist groups was because the MRTA is defunct - not because it did not commit acts of terror when it was active" and that however, "To add it to the list might, in APRODEH's view, risk exaggerating the current relevance of the moribund MRTA in a way that would play into the Peruvian government's strategy of attempting to intimidate social activists and political opponents [un-connected to MRTA] by accusing them unjustly of crimes of terrorism"

Summary: MRTA was listed on the "terror list" by USSD from 1997-2001, is not and was not so listed by European group, and almost for certain was and is listed by Peru, but we need a ref for that (I will keep in the text that it is and was listed as a terror group by Peru, not removing that, that is certain by being busy with researching the 2001 and the 1997 (and the CDI website) I don't have that yet). The paragraph should be corrected (I will if I can tonight otherwise, soon) to make clear: "was and is considered a terrorist group by Peru" and "was during 1997-2001" so designated by the State Department of the U.S. In addition the first paragraph gives the reader the false, incorrect impression that the USSD listed MRTA as terrorist on or before the date of her arrest, which is not the case, it was listed in 1997, some two years after Lori's arrest. On the other hand, to avoid the opposite bias or mis-impression, it should be clarified to readers that the reason it was not listed at the time of her arrest is not any favorable views of MRTA by the U.S. government but, rather, that this official list was launched only in 1997 and did not exist at the time of her arrest. --Harel (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The nuances of the who, what, when, where and how of the designation of MRTA as a terrorist organization is interesting, but the details would hardly be appropriate for the lede for article on MRTA much less this one. Hammersbach (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hammerbach: Wow. Really now? I will do as WP emphasizes and will "assume good faith" - but the specific justification given here is astonishing. Not for the lede? The opening, 'lede' paragraph had focused on MRTA's terrorist designation by Peru, and the USA and Europe, for months, and months, and months if not years, that was the lede! And now, after many months (at least) to over a year of this lede focusing on MRTA's status, suddenly when factual errors are found and after extensive time is invested in documenting the corrected facts, now, suddenly, it's not lede material? It's now "Nuances" all of the sudden? I know you've been following this entry for a long time, so you could not have missed that previous long-standinglede. Indeed, more than 50% of the lede has been about the terrorist designation of MRTA (it turns out partly erroneously) and you did not see fit to modify or trim that, including "...unlawful colleboration with...MRTA, a terrorist organization recognized by the Peruvian govenrment, the US Department of State and the European Parliament and which ahd committed numerous...." etc but as soon as someone invests a lot of time to improve WP by correcting the false information, suddenly you're on it in less than 24 hours and you don't consider it 'lede material'? And is suddenly "Nuances" to list what was listed all this time (Peru's and USA's designations) but just corrected? As the saying goes, "Come on, man!" :-)

So, if mentioning EU and USA in the lede was O.K. for all those months and months and probably over a year (I can check my records) it should not be "too long" or "not lede material" now. However, to make every effort to accommodate your (newly expressed) concerns about length and lede-appropriateness, I can try to trim down some of it. Namely, the parts concenring how the year 1997 compares with the year of her arrest, I can move to the body of the article.

So what I will put there is just identical to the earlier long-standing lede, with the only exception that the facts are corrected, from "recognized by [three entities] as terrorist" to "regocnized by Peru" and the years during which it was so regocnized by the US State Department. If you have further concerns beyond that please discuss them here before deleting; I would not consider it "good faith" to delete material that is just the corrected-version of the same exact facts that have been in the lede for all this time, without new facts, without first having a discussion here why the old lede material was not ok for lede. Again, the new top will be just the corrected version of the old lede, correcting the false statement that MRTA "is recognized" by the US Department of State to give the relevant years instead, if you believe even that is not for thet lede (even though it was for all this time) please discuss here first and explain how the US State Department's classification which used to be considered lede (not just by you but by the consensus of actions of editors) is suddenly not lede material. I hope we can agree that a shorter, trimmed version stating the years of the State Department designation, is fitting here for the factually corrected lede. --96.239.130.5 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Harel, first, let me commend you on the “extensive time” you invested in uncovering what you believe to be factual errors in the lede. Everyone appreciates efforts made to improve the Mighty Wik. Toward that end, might I suggest that you spend some quality time reviewing WP:Lede? It may help to temper your astonishment a bit. I would like to draw your attention specifically to the section on the opening paragraph which, ironically, says that we should avoid being “overly specific”. IMHO, when you added all that detail on the terrorist designation of MRTA that is when you ran afoul of policy. I would like to emphasis that I have no problem with you adding the material to the article, I just don’t seeing it being appropriate for this lede, and as I stated above I doubt that level of detailed information would even be acceptable for the article on MRTA itself. Hammersbach (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)