Talk:Marie Haydée Beltrán Torres

Conflict between Introductory Paragraph and Trial Paragraph

This article seems to assert two different convictions for Torres. The introductory passage correctly asserts that she was convicted of setting the bomb that killed Charles Steinberg at the Mobil Oil building. She was convicted because her fingerprints were found on a form she filled out at the office that morning. While she had been arrested with other FALN members, and they were convicted for a general crime of seditious conspiracy (among other crimes), since they could not be specifically tied to all the actions that lead to individual bombings. MH Torres, however, was convicted of a specific bombing that led to the death of someone. The trial paragraph ignores this.

In addition the trial paragraph states some nonsense that it was seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government of United States in Puerto Rico, or something to that effect. You will not find that charge or statement in any of the court documents. I would agree that in the final instance, Torres intended that, but no one would convict someone who sets a bomb in New York of a crime in another state.

Sources for this include:

• New York Post article The New York Post from August 31, 1999 FALN CREW NO INNOCENTS: REPORT by MURRAY WEISS and DEBORAH ORIN, as cited in [1]
• Sage Encyclopedia of Terrorism, page 194, by Laura Lambert, asserts that Torres was arrested for the bombing. [2]
• House Report 106-488 on Clemency for FALN, page 20, has very detailed report on the arrest, separate conviction of MH Torres in New York for the crime of causing the death of Charles Steinberg. She was therefore not included in those offered clemency by President Clinton [3]
• New York Times article [4]] states MH Torres was separately convicted of the bombing death, and also uses the term seditious conspiracy, not with the verbiage of Puerto Rico, which is not used by any of the articles above.

I recommend that article indicate that she was convicted of causing a death by bombing, not what is stated in the trial paragraph. It would clarify why she was sentenced to life in prison.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the POV tag. The lead sentence should include something about her status as a political prisoner and her experience in prison. In the meanwhile, I added your source, SAGE Encyclopedia, to the sentence about "seditious conspiracy". Best, --Jmundo (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Added Terrorism Project Banner

I have placed a Project Terrorism banner which reflects a fairly active group with interests in issues matching Torres' history. The involvement of Torres is mentioned extensively in Effects and effectiveness of law enforcement intelligence measures to counter homegrown terrorism: A case study on the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN); Final Report to the Science & Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, August 2012; hence including him in this project is entirely appropriate. I expect that editors, new to the article, can be recruited from this group with understanding of the subject and may give some guidance as to how to remove biases and apt sources.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Torres was convicted of placing the bomb that killed charles Steinberg

• The Dayton Beach Journal article from the day after the bombing, identifies Charles Steinberg as the person dying in the Mobil Oil bombing.
• The New York Times article states in the abstract that A life sentence was imposed yesterday on Maria Haydee Torres, a Puerto Rican nationalist who was convicted of placing a bomb that killed one person The articles goes on to identify the bombing as that in the Mobil Oil building.
• The entry by Mickolus and Simmons in the Terrorist list states in a paragraph for the entry on Marie Haydee Beltran Torres, that she was charged with the bombing of the NYC Mobil Building. The bomb killed Charles Steinberg and eight others (other sources mention seven injured). It then states, and I quote On May 22,1980, the FALN terrorist was found guilty of planting the Mobil bomb in1977. She was sentenced to life in prison.
• Finally the final decision of the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT that is referenced in the following paragraph, reiterates those same points above and that she refused council.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sterility in Ms Torres

I find it preposterous to discuss post-incarceration sterility in an inmate in a high security prison, arrested at age 35, and released at age 54 years. The rate of sterility in 54 yr olds exceeds 99%. Women in high security prison cannot procreate. At face value, the claim is beyond ridiculous.Rococo1700 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist classification

@Mercy11: Actually "we" do use terrorist on Wikipedia. See examples of articles where the individual is referred to as a "terrorist": Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: Thank you for pinging me about this. The problem here is that Wikipedia has a policy (see WP:TERRORIST) of not categorizing people as terrorists, and the {{short description}} used in the {{short description TEMPLATE}} is just that: a category, so we (editors) must follow those rules.

As to the 3 examples you gave, just because there are other articles that also use such short descriptions, doesn't mean they are right; they aren't -- they too are wrong. Those 3 are examples of WP:OTHER. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. WP is constantly evolving and being improved by people like yourself and Yours Truly; these 3 are 3 more instances where editors attempted to contribute in good faith. However, when an editor with enough time in his hands and who knows the rules comes by and sees the short descriptions in those 3 articles you listed, they too will be removed.

For an example of how individuals like Marie Haydée Beltrán Torres should be described, you might want to take a look at Osama Bin Laden; it uses a much less contentious short description but one which still properly describes the individual and in a manner that no one can disagree with.

BTW, when I said "we", I was referring to how "Wikipedia" wants this sort of things done; never meant to classify "myself" into some special, holier-than-thou group. Hope it wasn't perceived that way! tc, Mercy11 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a tough one for me because one can be for a cause- but in my and many other people's definitions, as soon as one starts blowing things up and maiming people - well you know it's graduation day and one officially becomes a terrorist. I'll leave it with no short description and let someone else tackle this one. Don't the newspaper articles refer to them as terrorists? BTW, I like saying "we"- it reminds me of the French. Many people on wikipedia say "we". tc--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: This is a tough one for everyone, which probably explains why WP's position is what it is (the "keep it neutral" thing). As for newspapers, we can find one newspaper calling her (and the rest of the FALN gang) a "freedom fighter" for every one newspaper that calls her "terrorist". Likewise, there are millions of people that would call Osama bin Laden a liberator, freedom fighter, martyr, perhaps even part of the Trinity. If I had the time (perhaps I will some day) I would take on the 3 you mentioned, but I don't now. I have other priorities. But sooner or later someone will come along to take on that WP:NPOV fight. BTW, I noticed those 3 are called terrorists not just in the short description but on the lead of the articles as well. But, again, sooner will later it will get changed. I just can't take on that battle right now. Political issues push people's nationalistic buttons in no time!

IAE, to the best of my knowledge there is no "as soon as one starts blowing things up and maiming people..." policy, guideline, or even any consensus (other than the obvious "test of time" of those 3 articles. If there was, then we could all adhere to the same set of rules. For now all we have is WP:NPOV and its various corollaries.

It's also useful to keep in mind that those 3 committed domestic terrorism, i.e., right on mainland U.S. soil. Then keep in mind that most English WP Wikipedians are Americans (this is a fact; there's a chart somewhere in WP showing this fact; you might have seen it). And keep in mind that fresh wounds take time to heal... Put those 3 statements together and I am sure you know what I am leading to.

I won't be following this page any longer; if you want to continue, feel free to reach me at my Talk Page. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)