Talk:Lori Berenson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Criminal Biography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance for Crime-related articles.
WikiProject Criminal Biography To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] 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.
    • 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Rational 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/r/Talk%7ELori_Berenson_3bae.html"