Talk:Lori Berenson

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

Trials[edit]

Sorry this edit looks so extensive... Mostly that is because I moved a section from "Efforts to Free" that was about the OAS hearing and the previous statement about laws being found unconstitutional in 2000 was incorrect, so I moved that to the correct sequence (2003).I also more closely aligned what is in the article with the citations. Hope it is not too much to follow. Grover22 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it. My POV meter quivered but it did not go into the red. At some point I will sit down and get more citations into the piece, but it just isn't a very high priority with me. I'm determined, though, to avoid it becoming a propaganda piece for either Berenson supporters or detractors.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

hope ==hope i'm using this page correctly. ==


". . . determined, though, to avoid it becoming a propaganda piece for either Berenson supporters or detractors . . ."

to my reading the peculiar, but unsurprising, goal, suggesting editorial powers of cleansing away "propaganda," carries the very essence of an ungovernable deficiency, that is inherently wikipedia's 'cross to bear' (& may i hope, wiki's cross to "bare"? har!

your remark presumes some kind of absolutes of 'factual history', something that is far from demonstrated. Your ambitious intention seems predicated upon a notion: that FACTS may, ever or always, be presented without bias, that they lend themselves to an utterly impartial representation or statement.

But history and facts are otherwise; ongoing events, our societies and their political activities, are a parade, to record which, as History and Fact, requires taking the unvarnished "state of affairs" and compiling it, according to some principles of Validity, and of Right and Wrong.

when it comes to Wiki Articles that are political in nature (as distinguished, say, from articles presenting the sciences, or mathematics, e.g.) a monumentally grand task is afoot--dispelling general ignorance, yes,

--but not by presuming unbiased editorial divinatory powers, or making tacitly a claim to comprehensive authority (so knowing what is Right or Wrong) as will cleanse The Articles, cleanse them, and guard them against "propaganda."

NO. For, there, precisely, is one structural Wikipedia problem, a cross too bare--for those who care to see it.

On any particular Wiki Article, how does one meet that challenging mission, of "avoiding it becoming a propaganda piece for . . ." fill in the blank?

Wiki is full of all sorts of rules, orthodoxies that are procrustean, all in all. And they have a sub-text, if i may say so. You will guard us, or me?, from propaganda? You will protect these books? beginning to sound kinda "editorial" here! no?

uh-oh! The Books, of What? of Orthodoxy?? How could this be? In its very conception, Wikipedia solicits from the public at large; any member brings her/his own 'subjectivity' to the table, regardless of attending merits, e.g., one's authority, credentials, training, practice yadda yadda.

I propose that, in the end, the zealous stranglehold on 'impartiality,' quixotic as it is, will have to cede place to THE OPENING, full-throated! the opening . . . to debate and dialog, and I predict, and urge, that this feature of "socialized" wellbeing will rise sometime soon--being a rigorous way of conveying useful information, being incorporated in Wiki critical norms, and so improving the articles themselves, for this fundamental reason:

that, Wikipedia, unlike other compendia or encyclopedia gatherings, is a collaboration of editorships, and of contributors, comprised of people who actively engage in the recording of their own perceptions, and evaluations of "what is right, wrong, valuable, in error, etc." It cannot be otherwise. Why pretend it is so?

In a hoped-for coming Editorial forefront, advancing beyond pious posturing, & dismissing pretentious claims to Objectivity and un-measurable impartialities,

a vitality, a healthy, articulate polemical breathing (the kind that abides, dynamically, in viable cultures and societies) writing, honest and strong, enough to contend with characteristic features--the new tracings offered in every moment's history--such as abominable wars, such as the faces of wicked powers, of prodigal monies, of poverties, of humane virtues and vices, these will ultimately have their Reportings.

Informative Reportings should not consign pertinent "facts," politically and socially relevant, even arguable and debatable, to a footnote. Asserted facts are allowed in texts where they deserve to provoke debate.

In the case of Wiki's present-day anodyne uses of Footnote Orthodoxies, often the "footnotes" seem to take pride of place--STRUCTURALLY before the text, before the implicit argument-- they're presumed willy-nilly to have an objective finality, as authentications, verifications.

Wiki calls for 'a source' as if it meant ipsi dixit a substantial fact-- usually, it's NO such thing; references are simply extracted from a vast hodgepodge of commonplace google-able MSM outlets. Wikipedia requires only this much, by way of authenticating facts, or better, sourcing endorsements.

C'mon; we all know half of these 'media sources, these MSM items, are lies, or distortions. And we all know which "half" is the blackguard liars too, right? --the half that doesn't agree with us! Right?

This structural 'defect' in the critical rigors of Wikipedia is generally to the delight of 'organs' such as WSJ, or Fox News (or whomever, i just take these voodoo instances!)-- indeed, certain so-called fourth estate "corporations" are dedicated to perpetuating their economic interests and profits, instead of, or before, any concerns for objective purview.

Why should Wiki serve as lickspittle to them? --thus even amplifying their covert, extreme and biased agendas?

blind ignorance, misapprehensions, of actual facts and events [which develop and permute moment by moment, that we call "history" in the making] could argue that the primacy of 'treating both sides equally' leads to a noble purpose, by serving the higher ends, namely extinguishing 'propaganda.'

Who is served by this kind of "footnoted" historical record? are its supposed immobile facts meant to address us? --minions, subjects, believers in the The Unrocked Boat of History??

Ah, the unrocked boat, that fiction, that carapace of recorded History!

Consider this sequence, from the "settled history" we've all generally ruled upon; this one, we've put our judgments upon it, and now want to think "it's harmless, and in the past"--

I refer to WWII; a Nazi era was strongly holding forth; then we noted a craven behavior, from those who claimed "they didn't know it was happening; they didn't know there were gas ovens; they didn't know . . ."

This reflection should remind us, who "we" are, today. When They came for Them, we did not recognize ourselves (among that group) of Them.

And so it goes . . .

One goes to these lengths to protest, that what may be Wiki's internal machine, suggesting or trying to "guard" facts and accurate information in print, is but the half-measure of candor and openness; to do less than encourage the open participation of the readership public, to not make easily available the full minutes of editorial activities, is a defect, whether built-in to, or only practised by, Wikipedia.

ProSocialist (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

ProSocialist (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow - you really believe the foecal utterings that spew forth from your keyboard in such abundance. Like most "socialists" (who are really commies dressed up to look nice), plenty of filler, no meat. If anyone was craven here, it was not the MSM but Berenson, who for more than 15 years refused to admit that she was very much in bed with a group of people who terrorized the Peruvian populace.Arlesd (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lori Berenson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lori Berenson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lori Berenson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)