Talk:Leonard Peltier/Archive 1

Archive 1

good form

Don't know much about this case, so I'll leave editing to the experts, but when quoting speeches, remember that it's considered good form to leave out repetitions and hesitations ("uh").

There is a gigantic hundreds of pages book about it. "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, by Peter Matthiessen". Some dont really like his book for various reasons i cant remember. I think it had something to do with him being a whitey outsider making his career and fame off some horrible tragedy... but its been a few years and my memorys fuzzy.

The earlier bits about Oglala were actually correct, though I think this version reads better.  :-D Anyway, there was a film made about it called Incident at Oglala; I think that might be where the poster got his/her info in re: the woman who testified. She's on there saying that she'd never met Peltier and just said what they told her to. An amazing confession, really. I can't remember her name either, sorry. I suppose I'll have to watch it again; it's been several years since I saw it last. --KQ

I haven't seen it. Amazon.com listing for it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00000I1L9/qid%3D1002073341/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/104-0763331-6922347

IMDB listing: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0104504

looks like a nice piece of propaganda, and I say that from a completely Neutral point of view -- whether he's guilty, whether he's innocent, looks like the film has the ability to powerfully sway people's feelings on the subject.

It's a good film but I wouldn't get it at that price. Kind of a B+ documentary, not as good as, say, Hoop Dreams or, um, Koyaanisqatsi, but well worth watching. And no, it doesn't make much attempt at NPOV. Look for it at your library, maybe? Or a bigger video store might have it; Robert Redford had some involvement with it (not directing, though). --Koyaanis Qatsi

Associates?

The article about the incident frequently refers to the suspicious men as "Peltier's associates". Clearly, this is making the assumption that Peltier was guilty and that these men were helping him with his escape, providing for a non-NPOV article. Is there another way to word this so that it does not refer to being related at all to Peltier while remaining grammatically correct? Thanks. :) -- TheWanderer

Irrelevant Political Fantasies

Removed from article; maybe it has some use elsewhere like WikiSource:

In 2004 he ran as a U.S. presidential candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party.

== Statement as Presidential Candidate ==

Leonard Peltier's Official statement as Candidate for United States President, 2004 2 November election:

Luther Standing Bear, a Sioux Chief, stated: "Out of the Indian approach to life came a great freedom – an intense and absorbing love for nature; a respect for life... and principals of truth, honesty, generosity, equity, and brotherhood as a guard to mundane relations." These values will guide me as president. I am a Native American, deprived of my language, culture, and traditions; yet, I have survived the genocidal government policies against Indigenous Peoples. I will ensure equal rights to liberty, education, employment, housing, and health care, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. I will work towards conflict resolution without the use of violence and ensure self-determination for all peoples. I live with injustice every day. Caged for over 28 years for a crime I did not commit, I am a political prisoner wrongfully convicted by a government that indisputably withheld and fabricated evidence, as well as coerced witnesses. No branch of government will correct this injustice. At the root of this injustice are the oppressive policies of the U.S. government against people of color and those with dissenting opinions. I pledge to eliminate such policies. I will abolish the federal death penalty and restore the constitutional protections which ensure justice for all people. Our environment is the essence of our life, but our government – in partnership with greedy corporations – haphazardly destroys it for the monetary benefit of a few. I will protect our environment to ensure our survival and the survival of our future generations.

-- (belated sig for my 06:23, 14 June 2005 contrib) --Jerzy•t

Issues the article could address

which I'll work on when I have time unless someone beats me to it:

• More details of LP's life if available.
• When and at what age LP joined the AIM, and what work he did for them.
• Circumstances surrounding the killings.
• Canada is a very large country. More specifically where did LP flee to?
• Name of the judge. More specific trial dates.
• More details of his supporters' arguments.
• Stated grounds for political prisoner status, at least for Amnesty, EP, and Dalai Lama.
• I vaguely recall hearing something about serious health problems, a couple of years ago. Something about dental problems, and not receiving proper health care for them. Bare facts and any reference to them by supporters.

Tualha 03:51, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

What does "illegally extradited" mean? since extradition is a legal status, it seems to me that illegal extradition is logically impossible; either Peltier was legally extradited, or else he was not extradited at all, but peraps turned over illegally to the U.S. government. --- Dominus 19:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hi i dont know how to post on here but this is my attempt illegal extradition is where the fbi cia dea us marshals or other such over balled under cocked govt agency sends, well agents "on vacation" and those occifers happen to go and bump into the wanted persons and wrangle them back to the states yes it does happen yes it is illegal extradition is not a "status" it is a process a task an objective. and a well rewarded objective at that the alphabet soup agency of choice will inform the local govt that there is a wanted person about and attempt to gather more information ,lets use the term unabraisively, once a good pinpoint is on the map 1 or two agents will "show up" on a camping trip or the like and later that night or the next morning our little "fugitive" is safely in an 8 by 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.121.226 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for Pardon

_ _ The following is an example of the need for PoV-ectomy someone requested for this article (copied w/o markup):

The case for Peltier's pardon has been two-fold. One argument asserts his innocence, and that he variously had no knowledge of the murders (as he told CNN in 1999), that he has knowledge which he will never reveal, or (as told in In the Spirit of Crazy Horse) that he approached and searched the agents but did not execute them. Another argument holds that the killings (no matter who committed them) occurred during a war-like atmosphere on the reservation in which FBI agents were terrorizing residents in the wake of the Pine Ridge standoff in 1972.

_ _ These aren't arguments verifiably being made; they are more like slogans for preaching to the choir, because they don't make a connection to pardoning. He should be pardoned bcz his contradictory accounts of his role don't all include participating in a kidnapping of Federal officials that led to their murders? Bcz in spite of the implications of his being alive and the agents being dead, it was the government that was acting according to a state of war rather than enforcement of existing law in the wake of an armed insurrection?
_ _ Perhaps such arguments along those lines are being made, tho they have not been stated here. If they are, let's hear who's making them -- or a clear statement that they make them publicly only while wearing a balaklava to prevent prosecution for inciting insurrection.
_ _ There also should be mention of the reports that his pardon would be one of Clinton's lame-duck actions. Any verifiable indications of why Clinton declined would be valuable.
--Jerzy•t 20:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to help with the NPOV workover on this article, if there are any concerned persons who have input please leave it here not my talk page.

RomaC 12:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It took a couple readings to decipher what you were trying to say, but first of all, using only that paragraph as a source, Peltier's accounts are not contradictory. HIS account (to CNN) is that he had no knowledge of it, and additionally, there are other arguments being made that he has other knowledge, and there is also an argument being made that he only searched the agents and did not kill them. The paragraph does not say that Peltier made all these arguments; only that they were made. Also, the last argument (which states that he searched the agents but did not kill them) is a direct reference to the incident itself, which was not a kidnapping in any way. The agents were following in a seperate car. There was no kidnapping, from what I've read. A shoot-out, and a murder, yes, but kidnapping? Not at all. Just something you might think about. You might also think about spelling words out completely. People might listen to you if you look a little more intelligent.

Sad, sad, sad

This entry is so far from non-biased!

How about this entry:

The officer, knowing that Peltier was a coward,...

Yes I see that. What course do you suggest to establish and maintain NPOV here? It seems the more details are added to this article, the greater the opportunity for manipulation through card-stacking and loaded language etc. Perhaps this article should be reduced to the bare bones, "just the facts"? People can seek out opinions and arguments about it on other sites or discussion boards but Wikipedia doesn't seem suited to or able to accommodate in-article arguments, they just turn into edit wars.RomaC 10:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this done

Have fixed the Jumping Bull section some, the second half of the article needs more work. RomaC 14:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I have worked through "The Aftermath" and "Alleged Trial Irregularities and Responses" sections (someone changed the section names to Title Case, style is the least of the trouble here so I went along with that). If there are comments or corrections please can we look at and discuss them here first because the article itself had become almost incoherent.

On to the next section, "Post-trial allegations," which is thorny. The Demain argument -- that Peltier, a convicted person, is in fact guilty -- seems pleonastic in nature but in my opinion it should nonetheless be represented here, although with considerations given to due weight.

In the next section, "Pursuit of freedom," we find a long list of individuals and groups who support Peltier's claim to innocence or status as a political prisoner, namely: " Nelson Mandela, Rigoberta Menchu, Amnesty International, Rage Against The Machine, Anti-Flag, the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights, Tenzin Gyatso (the 14th Dalai Lama), the European Parliament, the Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, Rev. Jesse Jackson and The Goats."

Now, that is a disparate bunch to say the least -- The European Parliament and The Goats don't belong in the same list I will venture. I would prefer eliminating (or marginalizing) rap groups and the like and instead having the more respected parties' positions on Peltier better spelled out, something like Demain's is.

To achieve this I propose combining the sections "Post-trial allegations" and "Pursuit of freedom" into a new section called "Post-trial debate and activities" or some such. Here I would summarize the positions and activities of all prominent concerned individuals and organizations (Demain, Amnesty, Kennedy Memorial Center, Mandela etc). I think that would be the most fair and objective way to present the varying viewpoints in this section of the article.

My goal is to be bold and make this a cleaned up and non-NPOV-disputed Wikipedia article, I would appreciate any constructive input. RomaC 12:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Could some information be given in terms of the statements as to his guilt by his prosecutors, e.g. do they, or some of them, as various supporters claim, state that it is unclear who killed the FBI agents?

-- Anonymous 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

22:17, 20 December 2005 edit. As there were no objections to my suggestion above, I did what I hope is a decent NPOV edit of the final bit of the article today. I hope this might be Wiki-acceptable. I welcome any comments and please be bold and improve the article further! It's my hope we can soon get to a point where we can remove the "Clean-up" tag that's been on the article since April 2005, and also the POV alert. RomaC 13:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and Clean-up Tags Removed as there were no objections to my edits above and earlier. I hope this is a version of the article that most people can accept, but please improve it of course!

RomaC 03:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

80's Song for Peltier

Does anyone remember a pop-song from the late 80's about Leonard Peltier? I was about 8 yrs old back then ... What i remember is a collaboration video in the vein of "We Are The World" or "Ain't Gonna Play Sun City". Does anyone know it?--Amir E. Aharoni 20:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Some clues

In your article about Leonard Peltier some information should be added, so that the reader can have a better understanding of the matter.

Here some clues:

a) On Paul DeMain, see IS HE A REPORTER, CRIME FIGHTER OR PEELED APPLE? PAUL DEMAIN AND THE FBI (in http://lpdctexas.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-he-reporter-crime-fighter-or-peeled.html).

b) When you deal with Leonard Peltier and Annie Mae Pictou-Aquash, one should take into account what appears in the official Leonard Peltier Defense Committee website: see Bob Robideau's statement FBI PUPPETS, PAWNS AND MURDERERS PELTIER REMAINS THE TARGET (in http://lpdcinc.blogspot.com/2005/07/reign-of-terror-operations-us.html).

c) Here Bob Robideau's two statements on the same subject: http://www.coloradoaim.org/blog/2005/02/press-relese-from-bob-robideau.html and http://lpdcinc.blogspot.com/2005/02/statement-from-bob-robideau.html.

d) Though it seems that the Wikipedians do not to like it very much, here Bob Robideau's another article to be taken into account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Robideau.

Thanks.

joseba felix tobar-arbulu (Basque Country)

Wikipedia is a real fraud.

They have changed the article Bob Robideau sent to them.

Compare the article they posted in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Robideau) and the REAL one Robideau sent them:

Statement by Bob Robideau

                        “WHO IS GOING TO BELIEVE YOU BOB”

The history of the unjust 29-year imprisonment of Leonard Peltier is well-documented. As recently as late 2003 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stated, "Much of the government conduct on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and in the prosecution of Mr. Peltier is to be condemned.”

FOI documents show that the FBI were actively engaged in falsifying reports to paint Pine Ridge as a AIM ready war zone. They fabricated documents, withheld evidence and coerced witnesses to convict Leonard Peltier. These facts are undisputed. Peter Matthiessen’s In The Spirit of Crazy Horse, along with the work of Churchill and Vander Wall, Agents of Repression, have chronicled the outrageous government misconduct which has put and kept Leonard unjustly in prison.

Zigrossi, FBI agent in charge of operations, said in the Canadian Fifth Estate program, ‘because of the death of agents Coler and Williams, “agents wanted revenge”.

Now we face a renewed FBI effort of spreading misinformation and manufacturing evidence designed and intended to seal Leonard's fate. In light of the recent trial of Arlo Looking Cloud fabricated evidence was presented; and the current extradition process of John Graham, misinformation is being spread which requires us to address THE FACTS and destroy the fiction.

During the trial of Looking Cloud, the government through several witnesses, all former AIM members, planted the idea that Leonard was in some way responsible for the murder of Anna Mae Aquash began to circulate. For instance, one Canadian television program stated, "At his [Looking Clouds trial the question was raised that Leonard Peltier ordered the execution fearing she was an FBI informer." An examination of the trial transcript will prove that no such statement was never made. The persistence of this inaccurate perception can only be understood in the context of the ongoing FBI campaign to deny not only Leonard Peltier justice, but justice for Anna Mae as well.

In addition it has become very clear to many of us that one of the central motivating reasons for the Federal Department of Justice’s decision to prosecute the Anna Mae case after some 26 years is because it presents a final solution to insuring that Leonard Peltier remain locked in prison for the rest of his life. The clemency campaign’s near success in freeing Peltier had propelled the FBI, who took extreme steps to stop President Clinton from granting clemency, took further steps with the Anna Mae case to stop any further avenues of freedom for Peltier.

Kamook Banks Ecoffey, a paid FBI informant, alleged that Leonard had confessed to the killing of the two FBI agents. When I asked Bernie about this she said, “I told them, I don’t care what my sister did, but you people hurt my family and I will never forget that and I just don’t want anything to do with any of you.”

The FBI knew who had executed Anna Mae 1976. Zigrossi knowingly said, “I’m sure they suspected her of being an informer and that’s probably what caused her demise. She was really a victim of circumstances…. (misfortune of war) There were several instances [after Rosebud and Oregon arrest] where she walked off and other people had to stay to pay the price. So rumor had it she was on our side . Kevin McKiernan observed, “…they must have had a celebratory dinner after that.” The FBI knew the three who had killed Anna Mae as early as 1976; they also knew the AIM leader who had ordered it.

Leonard had nothing to do with Anna Mae’s killing. Not only had he shared Anna Mae’s concerns about Durham with AIM leadership, but as the events leading to her death were unfolding, he was living as a fugitive incommunicado in Canada, where he remained until his arrest and extradition.

Further, Paul DeMain, editor of News From Indian Country, who in recent years has made outrageously inflammatory accusations about Mr. Peltier stated, "I neither believe nor feel that Mr. Peltier ordered, or was capable of ordering, the death of Anna Mae Aquash. I would have never said that Leonard Peltier ordered Anna Maes death because first of all I don’t believe that is the way that happened and second of all even if Peltier wanted her dead there was no authority for him to have ordered something like that....but the first proposition is that I never would have said that."

The historical record shows, along with Anna Mae Aquash, Leonard was one of the AIM members to first suspect Douglas Durham was an FBI infiltrator. Anna Mae raised these concerns with AIM leadership, including Vernon Bellecourt and Dennis Banks, who, for whatever reason, dismissed them. Her threat to Douglas Durham’s cover, initiated a "bad-jacketing" campaign by the FBI. Dennis Banks targeted Anna Mae as a result of actions taken by the FBI who ultimately led him to believe she was an informant.

An examination of the facts ineluctably lead to certain conclusions. Banks told us, for instance, that after Anna Maes murder was made public that Vernon Bellecourt flew to California to meet with Dennis Banks, Clyde Bellecourt and John Trudell. At my trial in Cedar Rapids in 1976, John Trudell, gave damning testimony, stating under oath, "I was sitting in a car with Dennis [Banks] when he said, "You know that body they found? That is Anna Mae." I didn’t know about a body..." According to Trudell this information was provided by Banks before the body had been identified. He gave similar testimony at the Looking Cloud Trial, but couldn’t remember the date, as clearly as he had in my trial.

John Trudell’s “friend” Anna Mae, sitting in jail in Vale, Oregon had sent him a letter about informants “A” and “B”. John Trudell, who had also picked Banks up during his escape, was a close confederate of Bank’s group. There is evidence to show that he had been working closely with the group since the FBI raid on Crow Dogs on September 5,1975. An FBI affidavit, (we know today to be another fabrication) for the purposes of legally stopping their vehicles in Oregon, and Indicting Dennis Banks, who had been the only one not identified by State Troopers. There had never been any FBI informants.

"A government affidavit that two informants placed Banks in the Oregon caravan, although he was not seen by state troopers," writes KcKiernan, "Some AIM members thought one of the informants was Ms. Aquash, who was not charged immediately in that incident and was able to escape prosecution by disappearing just before the indictments were handed down."

Bernie Lafferty said in a taped conversation, that Kamook and she had left the group in Washington State to attend a hearing in Wichita, Kansas. “I decided to stay home, Kamook flew back.” This explains two things: one why Bernie was no longer with the group when the group was arrested in Oregon; two their movements had lead the FBI to Banks and Leonard in Washington, ultimately to the groups arrest in Oregon. The surveillance of Bernie and Kamook was not reviled because it would not have been sufficient evidence to put out an all points alert, let alone give them legal justification for stopping the two vehicles. Nor would it have allowed them to indict Banks with the others. The FBI fabricated affidavit of informants “A” and “B” gave them legal power to do all them.

On November 24, 1975, Anna Mae decided to go to Denver, Colorado. “She knew she was going to get indicted on the Oregon charges no matter what, and she knew there was no chance she would receive justice, so she split," Nilak said. Anna Mae also believed that she would, as she had done on two other occasions from Denver, re-join Dennis Banks. Evelyn Bordeaux and Ray Hand Boy took Anna Mae to Denver at her own request.

After Anna Mae arrived at Troy Lynn's home she was free and made several phone calls during her two days of freedom. She made them to her family in Canada and three to Mathalene White Bear. Then on November the 28, Mathalene said, “Anna Mae sounded scared. She knew something was going wrong," the "phone went dead" . Mathalene said she never heard from Anna Mae again. This is because, in that moment, Anna Mae had been taken prisoner by her “friends”.

The telling revelation appeared on the Fifth Estate program. John Trudell said, “Troy Lynn Called me from Denver and told me that Anna Mae had been at her house and these people had come and taken her away as prisoner.” Then I recalled that he had told me in 1994 “I was called and told that Anna Mae had been taken to a protected area.” It became clear that John knew not only that Anna Mae had been at Troy Lynn’s, a safe house in Denver; he also knew the same day that she had been taken from Troy Lynn‘s “tied up” a prisoner. A lawyer, had been called in the middle of the night,asked to "come to the WKLD/OC committee office without explaination, told me, “when they brought Anna Mae in, she was tied up and I told them to untie her.”

Trudell also knew through Troy Lynn why Anna Mae had been taken to the WKLD/CO in Rapid City. John Trudell, a close confederate of Banks did call to make inquires about his “friend”. Many of those that confronted Anna Mae at the WKLD/OC were in constant contact with Trudell during this period. There is no evidence that he took steps to stop the process that lead to her execution. It is not surprising that John Trudell has spent the better part of the 28 years covering up for her murder.

There has been unity, contrary to appearances of disunity reported in the media since 1993. Why? Because he, along with his other “friends” know perfectly well each step, and why each step had been taken to kill Anna Mae. Trudell had to have known about the dead body of Anna Mae, at the same time Banks knew.

John’s convoluted accusation implicating Dennis Banks to the murder of Anna Mae in the Arlo Looking Cloud trial, sparked a counter response from Dennis Bank, who wrote in, Ojibwa Warrior, "It was during a meeting in Los Angeles, California, that John Trudell came over to me and said, "Annie Mae’s body has been found." The news devastated me. It was only the presence of so many people that prevented me from bursting into tears."

I sent the above expression of Dennis Banks, in an e-mail, to John Trudell, who wrote back stating, "Dennis (Banks) is lying about this. He is not mistaken, he is lying. If there were all these people in this committee room why is it no one has stepped forward before this to state that what I said is untrue. Also there never was any meeting at that time in Los Angeles, California that I attended. This email is the first that I've heard about Dennis (Banks) revising his role in this. Why would he wait more then 25 years to say this, reality is Dennis would have spoken out in 1976 if I was lying about this but he didn't. Let this play out we'll see who's telling the truth and who's not telling the truth. I haven't read Dennis's book but I figure the whole reason for his book is to try and clean himself up because during those times he got very very dirty and I want nothing to do with his mess. We'll see what happens."

Kevin McKiernan writes, in his article, “Indian Woman’s Death Raises Many Questions“, written May 30,1976, "AIM didn’t kill her," one well known AIM leader said in an interview who asked not to be identified.

"The pigs got there first.

"They knew we knew who she was, and they wanted to blame AIM with her death."

Despite fact that Banks, with the help of John Trudell, had made good his escape from Oregon with out being identified, he too was indicted on November 26,1975, two days before Anna Mae had been taken prisoner by AIM members in Denver.

In 2005 an attorney revealed to me that Corky Gonzales, who was dieing at the time, told him that the Affidavit regarding the two informants was "passed around during the meeting" about Anna Mae at Troy Lynn Yellow Wood’s house in 1975. (Ernesto Viji was named by both Troy Lynn Yellow Wood and Angie Begay Janis ( Mother of one of Dennis Bank’s children) as being one of the two members of the Crusade for Justice who took part in that meeting.) The FBI fabricated affidavit became an effective weapon against Anna Mae.

I am confident that John Trudell will eventually reveal his knowledge of the those in AIM leadership that were responsible for the death of Anna Mae Aquash.

During the Farmington, N.Mex., AIM Convention, Banks and Vernon Bellecourt expressed their concerns to Mr. Peltier, whom they then had interrogate her in an effort to discover the truth. Their suspicions sparked a series of accusations and confrontations by other AIM members which Anna Mae suffered and endured. But, she refused to be driven out of the Movement that she had come to embrace. Despite these accusations, Anna Mae remained a member of our group throughout the aftermath of the Oglala firefight up until the time she was executed.

Here, it is worth noting the continued involvement of Banks and Bellecourt in the Looking Cloud and Graham cases, consistent with their ongoing support for the FBI’s campaign to frame Leonard Peltier for the murder of Anna Mae, a campaign that includes accusing Peltier representatives, including myself and Ward Churchill, of being FBI agents.

Leonard felt obligated to withdraw his support from John Graham when it became clear that Graham, who has acknowledged having a role in Anna Mae’s murder, was attempting to establish a connection between himself and Leonard, specifically claiming that following the Oglala firefight he hooked up with "Leonard and them , and they were in the hills there. Anna Mae and all of us stayed..." As I was one of the people with Leonard at that time, I can unequivocally state that this is a lie.

False statements by Mr. Graham and lies by Kamook (Banks) Ecoffey [a/k/a Darlene Nichols] have been embraced by the media, which is reporting these outrageous accusations against Leonard. In the case of Kamook, who said that Leonard "...believed [Anna Mae] was a fed, and he was going to get some truth serum and give it to her so that she would tell the truth," her own sister, Bernie Lafferty, said in a taped interview that she knew this to be a lie.

Kamook also made claims that the group was watching Anna Mae and had her make bombs to get her fingerprints on them. Bernie said," Well, the bombing stuff, we were all there when that was going on. All I feel is that nobody was concerned about getting her finger prints or anything. At that time there were other things more important to worry about then that." Bernie said that Leonard treated Anna Mae no different than the rest of us, “I never once heard Leonard accuse Anna Mae of being an informant.” Bernie said further, “ We was always real close to Anna Mae…well, we had to be…I know deep in my heart that she was no FBI agent. She would never say anything to anybody.”

Further, there is no association official or otherwise between John Graham and the LPDC. In fact, we have requested repeatedly, both privately and publicly, that Mr. Grahams support committee remove Leonard’s statements and links to the LPDC website from their website, to no avail.

We know today that Anna Mae was killed, not for what AIM members who participated in killing thought. She was killed because of one AIM leaders fear of going to prison. Banks had expressed concerns to lawyers about the Bombings on the Pine Ridge Reservation; he had been in the motor home and faced big time. All the old suspicions about Anna Mae came back to haunt him.

In a personal reprimand, Banks expressed, in his recent book Ojibwa Warrior, doubt's about himself, "Did I do the right thing? DID I ABANDON MY PEOPLE JUST TO SAVE MYSELF? Kamook, in one e-mail bitterly expressed, “And when John picked Dennis up I know that Dennis' answer to John's question of "how are Ka-Mook and the rest of them?" Dennis' response was "it's every man for himself," or something to that effect.”

Finally, it is necessary to underline the continuing attacks against Leonard Peltier and his support network by the FBI and their affiliated websites, as well as the on going attacks on leading AIM members connected to the LPDC by Vernon Bellecourt and Dennis Banks. Their well documented participation in these efforts is echoed here as an attempt to destroy the on going work to raise the consciousness for justice and freedom for Leonard Peltier.

There are still many unanswered questions about John Trudell, who photo identified John Graham in Canada, and Dennis Banks who calls many of us FBI agents in our search for the truth. One truth is that there still is unity between John Trudell, Dennis Banks, and some of the rest of those leaders involved, hidden in the guise of disunity. One thing is for sure all are forced to play the game to save their own ass, including the FBI.

Yes, the FBI were responsible for the murder of Anna Mae Aquash too. The FBI had attempted to cover up the killing and had not investigated it for a decade, and still are not seriously investigating it. They willfully created the paranoia with the now infamous informant, Douglas Durham. Resulting in the paranoia that ran ramped throughout the movement. The FBI’s counter intelligence program’s most important tactic to plant distrust to create dissention, with the aim of fragmentizing and destroying activist movements. FOI FBI documents show they advocated and practiced these tactics against AIM.

Those AIM member who participated in taking care of Anna Mae believed that they were doing it to save the movement, were politically correct, should be supported and defended. But John Boy Graham, Dennis Banks, John Trudell and others who have chosen to use Leonard Peltier as a scape goat for their freedom must be condemned.

Zigrossi knowingly commented, "I'm sure they suspected her of being an informer and that's probably what caused her demise." Then he callously commented, "She was really a victim of circumstance." What he meant was that Anna Mae, courageous to the very end… was, 'A Misfortune of War.'

This bad decision was driven by paranoia injected by the FBI informant Durham; fear drove him to take care of Anna Mae. The reason self preservation. I do not accept his action politically motivated as some want us to believe. Banks was simply prepared, willing and ready to sacrifice a fellow AIM patriot, A true "warrior" rather then go to prison, this is unforgivable.

The host of the fifth estate, “Some people say that you ordered the death of Anna Mae”. Banks, head down, several seconds at a lose for words, finally says, “That is an interesting speculation, I would have died with her.” Dennis Banks knew he had the authority.

When I phoned Dennis Banks to inform him I was releasing the statement currently on Colorado AIM’s website, I told Dennis I knew that not only the FBI was setting Leonard up but also you [Dennis Banks] had set him up. His response was, "That is a pretty strong statement Bob. Who is going to believe you Bob."

Robert Robideau AIM

Note: This statement also appears as the initial contribution of article Robert Robideau, at (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Robideau&oldid=15815633). --Ascánder 23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest edit

What is a 'defensive wound'? Did the FBI report this?.. Users Bearcat , TDC? -- max rspct leave a message 00:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A defensive wound is one in which the victim atampts to "defend" himself during a fight. During a stabbing, for example, a person might try and block the knife using thier hands, and hence would recieve a "defensive" wound. When Peltier walked up to Williams and shot him, Williams put his hand up to stop the bullet. Futile as it is, its a natural reaction.

From the FBI:

There is no eyewitness testimony of what happened at the Agents' cars. However, the physical evidence showed that Agent Williams had received a defensive wound through his right hand. The same bullet then traveled through his head killing him instantly. Agent Coler was lying on the ground, unconscious or near unconscious, when he was shot once in the top of his head, but the wound was not fatal. Agent Coler was then shot a second time near the jaw. This wound was fatal.

This was established during the trial. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Political Prisoner

I reinserted the Political Prisoner category. He is considered a Political Prisoner by Amnesty International and he is also mentioned by example in Political prisoner. The category is indeed appropriate.

Oyvind 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be inclined to support the inclusion if I could find a link from AI's website that Peltier is a "political prisoner", but I cannot find a citation on AI's website. The closest I can find is the following:

Amnesty International has not adopted Leonard Peltier as a prisoner of conscience[1].

Please provide a source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you will find a direct link stating he is a "political prisoner". However a political prisoner is not necessarily the same as a prisoner of conscience. In the case of Peltier, he would likely be automatically excluded from the status of POC, due to the fact that he has used or advocated violent means. If you read the Political prisoner entry however, it mentions qualifications such as unfair trial, false criminal charges etc. In the links below you will find some more information where AIUSA states "The organization has consistently voiced concerns about the fairness of the legal proceedings that led to his original conviction and sentence and believes that political factors may have influenced the way in which the case was conducted." and "Native American activist Leonard Peltier, who remains in prison after 23 years despite Amnesty's serious concerns about the fairness of his trial and sentencing and lack of proper medical attention.".

USA: Amnesty International will attend Leonard Peltier hearing[2]

USA: APPEAL FOR THE RELEASE OF LEONARD PELTIER[3]

AIUSA Annual General Meeting 1999 - April Update[4]

Oyvind 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not find a direct link stating that he is a political prisoner because AI, contrary to what you wrote above, does not consider him to be one.

The qualifications you mentioned for a political prisoner, as given in the Wikipedia article, are minor and ancillary ones. The primary defining characteristic of a political prisoner has nothing to do with how fair the trial was or how fair the charges were, its about why those charges were brought forth in the first place: namely to imprison someone critical of the government: A political prisoner is someone held in prison or otherwise detained, perhaps under house arrest, because their ideas or image are deemed by a government to either challenge or threaten the authority of the state. AI has not made this comparison, and therefore it should not be in the article attributed to them. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point as to what constitutes a political prisoner, and I agree that what you mention are the main reasons... Based on that reasoning, it still seems clear that he’s a political prisoner. The reasoning might be more complex than what we started out with, but here’s some information that I believe supports it:

Amnesty mentions the following (which is the closes I’ve come to actually finding it on their website, although keep in mind that the archives on their websites are limited, not exhaustive):

* Amnesty mentions that the organization remains concerned about the fairness of the proceedings leading to his conviction and believes that political factors may have influenced the way in which the case was prosecuted.. Amnesty does not ask for peoples release from prison lightly, especially not in such a civilized society as the US, and even though the wording is somewhat cautious, the fact that they’re even mentioning political reasons would indicate that they have a lot of information pointing to the fact. [5]

* The books 'In the spirit of Crazy Horse' by Peter Matthiessen and 'Agents of repression' by Ward Churchill (I'm certain you love him) have provided good testimony to the fact that Leonard Peltier got caught in the dragnet of the COINTELPRO operations against the American Indian Movement. This was a highly political operation, and the FBI clearly saw AIM and their members as a threat to the authority of the state. This combined with the fact that the FBI clearly put everything into putting Peltier behind bars, including forging evidence, perjury etc. would quality Peltier as a political prisoner.

Oyvind 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

All of this is irrelevant as to the definition. Even had Peltier been involved in COINTELPRO somehow, it would still not change the fact the he was tried and convicted of shooting two injured and unarmed FBI agents at close range with an assault rifle. He is not in jail for what he thinks or believes or says, rather he is in jail for murder. Peltier has had numerous times in front of the bench to dispute his conviction and he most certainly has not lacked for adequate legal representation. Every appeal he has filed has been denied by multiple courts and judges. What the FBI is alleged to have done perjury forging evidence, clearly has not been established outside the minds of Peltier’s most ardent supporters. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What first you're stating might've been relavant had he not been a Native American, nor a member of AIM, a group of people and an organization that the US government persecuted and felt greatly threatened by. As it is, the fact that he IS those two things makes him qualified as a political prisoner combined with the evidence of perjury, forging evidence, coercing witnesses etc., not necessarily what he thinks or says, because the government considers him a threat for whom he is. Further down, you're basically asserting the infallability of the United States courtsystem, and that they can have no political prisoners, a flawed argument at best. Lastly, the perjury, forging evidence etc. has been very well documented and has very little to do with being a Peltier supporter or not. It has for instance been established by the US court system itself, Canadian authorities as well as the books mentioned above. These are some of the things that make Amnesty and others call for his release, due to the fact that justice has indeed in this case not been served. I would suggest you read a bit further what for instance Amnesty has to say about their concerns regarding the case, and if you feel so inclined also books, court decisions etc.. Like I've tried to convey before, it was not like Amnesty one day saw a picture of Leonard Peltier and said "Hey, dude... This native american has a nice beard...Let's front his case to get him released." Your arguments fail this time, but I do however enjoy the discussion. :) It would be nice if other people would chime in to present some pros and cons as well. Oyvind 19:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not for editors to determine who is a political prisoner or what constitutes one. If he's on AI's list, then include him in. If he's not on the list, then leave him out. I have not examined AI's web page yet, but from this discussion I get the impression that AI has commented on question surrounding Peltier, but not added him to the list. Is that right? If he's not on their list, then he shouldn't be on our list.Verklempt 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is my point, no reputable group considers him a political prisoner, find one that does, or his inclusion cannot be justified. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, after some digging based on one of the more recent edits, none of the following organizations considers Peltier a political prisoner:

• Southern Christian Leadership Conference, no
• National Congress of American Indians no
• Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights. no

And I am placing a fact tag up until a source from a credible human rights organization is produced verifying his status as such. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because google can't find mention of these facts on certain sites does not mean they are not facts. SCLC, for example... Searches like this one will be far more informative than the ones you tried.--csloat 20:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I see .... so the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's website is not the authoritative source on positions taken by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. That makes sense. So, by that logic, if I wanted to know what PETA thought about a certain subject, the National Council on Ranchers would be a good place to look? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're the one with faulty logic. Not every statement the SCLC has made will appear on their website. And not every statement on their website will be indexed in google. If you try a broader search, you might find more information, some of it reporting the information you seek. I'm just trying to be helpful. Nonsense about the Ranchers really has no place here. But perhaps you aren't really seeking the information; instead perhaps you are seeking to prove that the information isn't there by choosing an intentionally narrow method of searching?--csloat 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked, many times, for a good reputable source that any mainstream organization considers Petier a "political prisoner". Not something from the PLP or Ramsey Clark, but something mainstream and credible. This has yet to be provided, and as the discussion above show's claims about AI declaring him a political prisoner were bunk. One good source, thats all.

Anyways, dont you have someone else you would rather stalk? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First, cut out the ridiculous personal attacks. I have never stalked you, as you know. You even started a bogus RfC making that ludicrous and unsupportable claim, and it was roundly rejected. Why must you keep bringing this up? Especially when you have clearly and demonstrably stalked me on numerous occasions? Ah well, that is neither here nor there. If you cannot find a mainstream organization that considers Peltier a political prisoner, perhaps you should refine your research skills. I attempted to help you with that in the post above, and all you could do is ridicule it. A very simple google search immediately produces this statement, for example, from Amnesty International in April 1999: "Amnesty International considers Leonard Peltier to be a political prisoner whose avenues of redress have long been exhausted." The google searches you produced above were intentionally misleading. If you really wanted to find a source stating that any mainstream organization considers Peltier a political prisoner, you would have found it long ago; I suspect what you want instead is the appearance that you cannot find such a source. The alternative explanation is that you are too simple-minded to find such a source, and I have a hard time believing that.--csloat 00:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You: First, cut out the ridiculous personal attacks

Then: you are too simple-minded to find such a source

Pot, meet Kettle, and he is black as well. Face it, you came here to stalk me, and that’s OK, because after all, its like you once told me “I’m not stalking you, I followed you to correct you blatant POV, and even if I was stalking you, it’s OK”.

As far as your Amnesty cite, here is what AI really said: “Amnesty International has investigated this case for many years. Although Amnesty International has not adopted Leonard Peltier as a prisoner of conscience,”.

The google search with the string “Amnesty International considers Leonard Peltier to be a political prisoner whose avenues of redress have long been exhausted” comes from Peltier’s lawyer.

Let us weight the validity of these two sources … Pletier’s lawyer … AI website … Pletier’s lawyer … AI website… Pletier’s lawyer … AI website, ding!; I think we have a winner Chuck: The AI site; which should be the authoritative source on the subject, and does not jive with his lawyer.

I have looked long and hard for a legitimate source that claims Peltier is a political prisoner, and have found nothing. But just for the sake of argument, lets run down the top 10 in the google search you posted:

# Wikipedia, not a source

# Peltier’s website, not a source

# A book review on Amazon, not a source

# Ohh, ooh, the neo-Stalinist International Action Comitee, definitely not a source.

# and so on…….

Good enough? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I said I did not think you were that simple-minded, and you took me out of context, putting the opposite words in my mouth, much like you took out of context the quote from Amnesty intl. Read the rest of the quote and see that they demand his release from prison (perhaps because they consider him a political prisoner). Then you say the quote comes from Peltier's lawyer, which is true, but she is quoting who? Wait for it: Amnesty International. She even gives the date of the quote April 6th, 1999. Your game show nonsense has nothing to do with reality. The fact that this quote is not on AI's website does not mean it is fabricated. Your comment that it "does not jive" with AI's website is because you took the quote from the website out of context. Are you seriously charging Jennifer Harbury with making something this obvious up out of whole cloth? Your claim is that a Harvard-educated lawyer, who has argued in front of the Supreme Court, is a liar, and as evidence you have a partial sentence from an AI site and your assertion that it "does not jive" with the direct quote, dated, from AI that she cites? Because you can't find it on google? TDC, perhaps you would be interested in something called a library, which has a lot of information that never finds its way into google. Go forth and check it out, I'm sure you are resourceful enough to find the direct quote there. If not, perhaps you should call the American Bar Association, as I'm sure they would be interested in knowing that a well-respected lawyer is just making crap up. By the way, the claim that AI considers him a political prisoner has been published in numerous mainstream news articles over the years; see, for example, The Washington Post, June 27, 1994 p. A11; The Toronto Star, November 11, 1997 p. D1; The Toronto Sun, March 11, 1999, p. 17; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 21, 2000 p. 1A; The Independent (London), February 24, 2001 p. 13. The last source also notes that he was recognized as a political prisoner by the European Parliament. I imagine it will be easy to find similar evidence of what the SCLC and other organizations have said about the matter. But again, I don't think you're truly interested in finding such information; you seem more interested in pretending that you can't find it so that you can delete factual statements from Wikipedia.-csloat 02:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, will you please stop the stalking BS? I have never stalked you, and you fabricated a quote from me to "prove" that I did! What kind of nonsense is this? Every time you attack me, TDC, I have a harder and harder time believing you are here to do anything but disrupt Wikipedia.--csloat 02:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You are stalking me, but that’s OK, (at least by your logic), so we shall speak no more of it. As far as the cite from Peltier’s page, that’s what his lawyer says, not what AI says. Peltier’s lawyer is lying, or that is to say she is overplaying her hand. Amnesty says it has “concerns” about the trial and petitioned the president for clemency they emphatically state that they do not consider him a political prisoner:

Although Amnesty International has not adopted Leonard Peltier as a prisoner of conscience, the organization remains concerned about the fairness of the proceedings leading to his conviction and believes that political factors may have influenced the way in which the case was prosecuted.

Note the date on this, July 15th 1999, 3 months after Peltier’s lawyer made the statement. Don’t you think that AI would have called him a political prisoner, if they believed he was one? But AI, in fact, went out of their way to specifically state that they do not consider him one. And what kind of logic is that because I cont find something on AI’s website that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist? Had AI made the statement, it would be on their website, its very extensive, but its not on the site, so I don’t think we can conclude that they ever made the statement.

So, once again, who do we believe, AI’s site or Peltier’s lawyer, I know, the idea of a lawyer lying to get their client off is laughable, but in absence of evidence that is all I can conclude. I cant believe that AI would go out on such a limb for this piece of shit, when all available evidence (oh yes I know "the MAN" done framed him) points to his guilt. But only in America could the execution style murders of two FBI agents be considered an actio of political speech. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No; I'm not stalking you, since you like big writing, let's try this: stop accusing me of stalking you and stop lying about me. As you recall, you tried to make a case for stalking against me and it was roundly defeated because you were totally wrong. Now, you claim that Peltier's lawyer - a well known, respected, harvard graduate, who has argued in front of the Supreme Court - is lying. Yet you offer no evidence except an out of context clause from a sentence that does not address the statement, cited in several news articles (as noted above) that he is considered a political prisoner. Not a "prisoner of conscience," which is from your quote, but a political prisoner, from the AI quote that Peltier's lawyer cited. If you have evidence she is lying (not just lying, but completely making up quotes!), send it to the ABA. Your claim that everything AI ever said is on their website is ludicrous. Check a library, or check any one of the newspaper articles I cited. As for whether Peltier is guilty, I have my own theories, but I don't care to debate them with you, since I am not invested in this issue at all, and it is not relevant to the controversy here. Your comment about execution being political speech "only in America" is totally bizarre, but I am not really interested in your anti-American opinions. The only thing relevant is that you insist on removing accurate and sourced information based on phony google searches and sheer bluster.--csloat 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source for the the disputed sentence that TDC will like: David Yeagley writes in Frontpage magazine, likely where this sentence was paraphrased from in the first place, "Such groups as Amnesty International, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, National Congress of American Indians, the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Rev. Jesse Jackson, consider Peltier to be a 'political prisoner' who should be released immediately." I agree with TDC that direct press releases from the organizations are better than magazines and newspapers for this sort of information, but we should not just delete something because we are too lazy to find those press releases when they are not made available on official websites for us. We should certainly not just assume that everyone quoting AI in newspapers and magazines is a liar making up entire quotes, as TDC would like us to do. A simple phone call to AI or SCLC or whoever else will get this sorted if TDC is afraid to visit the library.--csloat 08:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Hey, you two kids cut it out, or I'll turn this car right around and no ice cream. Since Amnesty's web page clearly states that Peltier is NOT a prisoner of conscience, case closed. I would also note that what AI said in 1999 may not be its position today. But until we have an unambiguous statement from AI itself that they do have LP on their list, then I think they have to go off the political prisoner cite list. AI is obviously the most authoritative source on this question, and they have spoken.Verklempt 20:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The website clearly says he is not a "prisoner of conscience." Their 1999 statement says he is considered a "political prisoner." The website statement TDC quotes is out of context; if you look at the rest of the sentence: "the organization remains concerned about the fairness of the proceedings leading to his conviction and believes that political factors may have influenced the way in which the case was prosecuted." In other words, he is not in prison for his beliefs, but he is in prison for political reasons, in other words, he is a political prisoner, as they more clearly said a couple months before the statement on the website: "Amnesty International considers Leonard Peltier to be a political prisoner." We also have the archive cache of Amnesty's website making that same statement. That appears to be an "unambiguous statement from AI itself." Case closed, indeed. I'm not sure why you find this hard to understand, Verklempt.--csloat 22:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Please provide the cite to where AI's website said Peltier was a political prisoner. The archive cache URL will do. Also, my edit did not "consor" the political prisoner claims. It merely pointed out that the sources are questionable. If anything, your rv censored that fact. Verklempt 22:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The cite was right there on the page until you deleted it: here you go. Sorry about using the word "censor" but you did delete relevant sourced information.--csloat 22:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW I would not object to including the other cite from AI as well, making the distinction between "political prisoner" and "prisoner of conscience." But to use that to say he is not considered a political prisoner, when we have a flurry of articles from published mainstream news sources that say they consider him one, is mendacious. (As noted above, such articles include The Washington Post, June 27, 1994 p. A11; The Toronto Star, November 11, 1997 p. D1; The Toronto Sun, March 11, 1999, p. 17; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 21, 2000 p. 1A; The Independent (London), February 24, 2001 p. 13.).--csloat 22:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the cite. I now agree that AI should be on the list. It is possible that LP may have been removed from the list since 1999, but lacking more recent data, this press release does seem authoritative. However, David Yeagley writing in Front Page is a dubious source at best. Horowitz and his publications are notoriously unreliable.Verklempt 23:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll be fixing your edit since you put a lot of BS in. Nobody "disputes the reliability of these sources" except you and TDC. A simple google search finds dozens of other sites confirming what Yeagly says and, more importantly, not a single source disputing it. While I agree frontpage is a crappy source that is often full of lies, it is a convenient one for now since he names all the organizations in one sentence. But it would of course be better to get a press release from each organization. Unfortunately not all such material is available on the web. In the absence of contradicting evidence, however, we should accept published accounts at their word rather than claim they are "disputed" just because certain wikipedia editors wish they were false. If you have articles stating that Yeagly is a liar or that the SCLC does not consider him a political prisoner, let's see it. Otherwise, there is no more reason to doubt what is published in numerous sources than there is to doubt other published statements of fact. If the NYT publishes an article stating that Bush said "Let's roll" do we say that he is alleged to have said that until we find a press release on the white house website? As for AI, I will add the full sentence from the website in so that the difference between political prisoner and prisoner of conscience is more clear, but we will now have an unweildy intro. There is no reason for Yagly or his POV to be even mentioned in the intro of this article.--csloat 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

The introductory paragraph has become, as cited by csloat, "unwieldy". Intros should be short and concise and touch only briefly on the salient points that are to be presented in greater detail later in the article. (At least this is what I have always been taught, and I have the failing grades to prove it.) The discussion on whether or not he may be considered to be a political prisoner has been spirited with good points being made by both sides. It's been enjoyable reading. My only observation would be that the discussion properly revolves around what belongs in the heart of the article, not the intro. Perhaps a section on the whole question of whether or not he is a political prisoner is something the article needs. Cheers! Cafe Irlandais 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

i've reverted to the above version...we have a proper source for amnesty, and no direct sources for the other groups who are all mentioned later in the article anyway. i agree that we should try to keep the opening paragraph as simple as possible, and amnesty carries the most clout and authority when it comes to politcal prisoners. this way, we can also ditch TDC's 'disputed' tag (which seems to be there purely because of the 'political prisoner' stuff). --Deadflagblues 19:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is a good edit. I was planning to undertake such a thing myself. I agree that the political prisoner debate is relevant, but unwieldy for the opening paraVerklempt 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am fine with that, since the other groups are mentioned later in the article. We do have a proper source for them however; they are mentioned in several magazine and newspaper articles, which are considered valid sources. The sources would be questionable if there was a reliable source refuting these facts, but there is not - there is just TDC's challenges which, though aggressively insistent, are not backed up by any reliable source. In the absence of a challenge, it is my view that information published in a mainstream news source should be assumed to be credible. If there is a published challenge, that is a different story, but in this case, the only identifiable challenge to these claims comes from a Wikipedia editor (and a very biased and often trollish one at that). Just because someone is insistent and rude does not mean there is merit to their claims.--csloat 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A question of chronology:

The Amnesty International statement in which AI declares Peltier to be a political prisoner is dated April 16, 1999.

The Amnesty International statement in which AI explicitly states that they do not believe Peltier to be a political prisoner is dated July 15, 1999.

Since July 15, 1999 comes after April 16, 1999, it reflects AI’s most current position on the subject, and therefore the article should reflect this. Unless you can provide something more current. I have also removed the other organizations as per my links above. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the comments above TDC. AI's July statement says he is not a "prisoner of conscience". It does not say he is not a "political prisoner." As I showed, you took it out of context. Please quit trolling.--csloat 22:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Most assuredly did not. They went out of thier way to say he was not a "prisoner of conscience", and the postdates your reference. Sorry bout that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comments above TDC. AI's July statement says he is not a "prisoner of conscience". It does not say he is not a "political prisoner." As I showed above, you most assuredly did take it out of context. Please quit trolling. Thanks!--csloat 07:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

After a closer look, I found some more interesting material from AI, that may explain why the link you provided is no longer on the website.

The dead link you provided is dated April 16 1999. The AI Documents and Publications listing for May of 1999 gave these keywords for the press release of Peltier: “LONG-TERM IMPRISONMENT / TRIALS”. For Sri Lanka, they give the keywords “POLITICAL PRISONER” and in many of the other briefs they give the keywords “PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE”. The link to the translated version is the same statement as the one I posted above. Why would they not classify him as a political prisoner, when they do that for others, if they stood by the now dead link you provided? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trolling, TDC. First you claimed the April 1999 quote was just made up, now you claim it is "outdated," yet your most recent quote is from July 1999. Can you explain what happened in the three months between AI statements that might have changed their mind? The "evidence" you provide about Sri Lanka does not address Peltier at all; your claim that it may explain why something is not on AI's website is a bizarre form of WP:NOR. Websites change all the time for all kinds of reasons; we cannot impute motivation to the webmaster. The July statement that you are taking out of context includes the following sentence in full: "Although Amnesty International has not adopted Leonard Peltier as a prisoner of conscience, the organization remains concerned about the fairness of the proceedings leading to his conviction and believes that political factors may have influenced the way in which the case was prosecuted." As I noted above, a few times now, (and you have not responded), the statement says that although they have not adopted Peltier as a prisoner of conscience, the organization believes that political factors may have influenced the case's prosecution. It seems clear that for AI, an official adoption of a prisoner as a prisoner of conscience means something different than their belief that he is a political prisoner. One who is a "prisoner of conscience" is in captivity because of his or her beliefs. Had Peltier been imprisoned for believing in something rather than for killing cops, then they might consider him a "prisoner of conscience." However, a person imprisoned for "political factors" is a "political prisoner" -- Peltier is in prison for murder, but AI believes that his prosecution was unfairly influenced by political factors. Now, I have cited two sources that are later than July 1999 which quote AI as considering him a political prisoner (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 21, 2000 p. 1A; The Independent (London), February 24, 2001 p. 13). Looking again I see an article making the same claim in Buffalo News, September 14, 2004, p. B1. As far as I can tell, AI has not phoned in corrections to these papers or issued a statement responding to these claims. So, we have a quote from AI stating that he is a political prisoner, another quote stating he is not a "prisoner of conscience" but that he was unfairly prosecuted due to "political factors," and numerous statements from reliable news sources stating that AI considers him a "political prisoner," and not a single source stating that the organization does not consider him one. Are we done here?--csloat 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

European parliament

The European parliament does not consider Peltier a political prisoner. They passed a non-binding common resolution asking for a pardon for Peltier [6]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I cited a verifiable source above that they do consider him a political prisoner. Please stop trolling.--csloat 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And I cited them directly, and they say differently. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

no part of this article states or suggests that the european parliament considers peltier to be a political prisoner. you also seem unable to differentiate between the very general term of "political prisoner" and AI's own "prisoner of conscience" label. please make sure you actually read the article and pay attention before making these kind of edits. --Deadflagblues 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I did misread the passage, I was under the impression that it was the same as before. Secondly, as there is still a dispute as to Peltier's status as a politcal prisoner, the tag should stay in place Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute. The only one who questions that status is a non-notable Wikipedia editor. There is no published source questioning his status. There are several published sources establishing that status. Thanks!--csloat 07:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you cannot produce any. Whats that say? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For the third time, TDC: The Independent (London), February 24, 2001 p. 13.--csloat 19:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Link please? And exactly who are they recycling, AI or someone else? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No link, sorry. Go to the library.--csloat 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

there might well be a dispute over whether he should be considered a political prisoner, but this article isn't stating that he should be considered a political prisoner, only that amnesty international and many of his supporters consider him to be one. the 'disputed' tag is there for entries which contain disputed info, and as far as i can tell, this one doesn't have any at the moment. --Deadflagblues 18:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a short note (more about AI). If you ever had to deal with them you would know that it is very hard to get them to use harsh terms (political prisonner). AI executive members tend to play it safe. I recall a meeting where representatives from a dozen other organisations tried to persuade them to just include the word repression in a report they were about to publish. The report was indeed published, listing 3-4 cases of the 6 or more we'd presented. All the evidence screamed of repression, yet the word was not to be found in their report a single time. It is one of the problems of AI these days, the lack of courage to say what has to be said. And yes, I would consider Peltier a political prisonner. It is even debatable whether the US has/had jurisdiction in this case.--Caranorn 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Debatable that the US had jurisdiction? Are you serious? This was the killing of two Federal agents. No matter what the circumstances, under US law they have jurisdiction no matter where the killimgs occured. They happened in the US. Silly statement. There are many US citizens including me, that think Peltier has served long enough regardless of his guilt or innocence. The European Parliament should stay out of this if they want to help him, their resolution makes a pardon less likely. - SuddenSam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.126.107 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty for a long time has been hijacked by silly leftwingers. Peltrier thought killing "pigs" was fun and now he has to live with the consequences.--Radh (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

recent reverts and the anonymous, probably POV edit that caused it

To put it simply, I'd prefer it if someone took the time to edit what they feel is POV or simply wrong in that edit, not blanket revert. Two users have already taken the time to do this, yet they've been both now been reverted twice by Deadflagblues. I consider 64.149.46.84's edit good faith even if obviously not neutral. The attempts to revert that edit have probably also all been good faith, but I believe three of them as POV as the original anonymous edit. Just deleting that entire edit and the subsequent edits is akin to vandalism to me. I wish that anonymous user would decide to come and improve on his edit (better, sign up, the funny part is that his edit criticses anonymous spokespeople). Anyhow, I hope someone with better knowledge of the subject will have the time to take a closer look at the article. As I already explained in a personal reply, my main knowledge is of AIM and even that only as a part of college classes (some ten years in the past). I obviously sympathise with the movement (and thereby am not entirely neutral) and to a degree with Peltier.

Anyhow, I hope this will have to be my last intervention on this page.--Caranorn 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

the reason i (and others) have blanket rv'd the edit is because there's barely anything salvagable there. but anyhoo, point by point:

"Indeed, this environment of fear prompted many peaceful reservation Indians to refuse to leave their homes without an armed convoy of AIM activists, since even a trip to the grocery store, church, or school quite often resulted in attempts on their lives by the so-called "Goon Squad", an unofficial security force who answered only to unpopular Oglala tribal president Dick Wilson. The actions of Wilson's "Goon Squad" and the terror they invoked on the reservation among his opponents was one of the primary arguments made by the defense in the trial of Dino Butler and Bob Robideau, who were also tried for the deaths of FBI agents Williams and Coler, and found not guilty. Many speculate that had Peltier been tried alongside his peers Robideau and Butler, he would be a free man today. After the exoneration of Butler and Robideau, the FBI brought to bear its full power on the trial of Leonard Peltier."

absolutely everything in this block is uncited, POV and using weasel words. and adding words like 'calculated' in the next paragraph serves no other purpose than to inject a pont of view into the article. i'm also pretty sure that the campaign against his clemency extended beyond the FBI.

"This speculation is founded in the reality that outside of letters, campaigns and other actions taken by the FBI themselves, there has been little to no support from the American public or indeed, the world community as a whole, for the continued incarceration of Leonard Peltier."

unless we can find some US and international polls regarding peltier, this is again totally POV and uncited. the next edit of "unsurprisingly to many" is completely unneeded, and more importantly is pure WP:AWW. it shouldn't be there.

"The statement by this alleged unnamed group of Indian leadership is extremely uncharacteristic, for in modern-day Indian Country it is considered cowardly and unmannerly to make any public statement without first identifying oneself by name, tribe, and clan. Indeed, in many tribes it is still customary today for people under the age of 30 or 40 to, instead of speaking publically, choose an older clan relative to speak on their behalf. In the Indian mindset, any unidentified public statement would be taken with a grain of salt; those who speak the truth are proud to attach their name to it. It should also be noted that during the June 26th, 1976 battle between federal agents and members of the American Indian Movement, there were only a few AIM activists present plus a scattering of women and children- all told, perhaps 20 or so people. Those few people, along with the hundreds of FBI, State Police, Tribal Police, and "Goons", are the only eyewitnesses to that fateful day's events. For many, in light of the limited number of Indians present at Jumping Bull that day, it is hard to accept statements made by an "unnamed delegation".

This is all POV and unreferenced. the fact tags have been added, but that's not a reason to keep dubious, uncited text by an editor with a blatant agenda.

"After the Looking Cloud trial, it came to light that Darlene Nichols had developed a sexual relationship with Robert Ecoffey, Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Law Enforcement Services, an individual believed by many to be (through his cooperation with the FBI and other Federal and State agencies) in part responsible for the war-like conditions present on the Pine Ridge and other Indian reservations in the early to mid-1970's. This relationship between Nichols and Ecoffey later blossomed into a marriage."

if there's a reference for that, it should definitely be in the article, as it's hugely important. but i think that's too big of a claim to go uncited in an encyclopedia.

the only edits worth keeping are the ones to the last section, which seem pretty neutral and fair. better sources would be good though. but yeah, these ones should have been kept in before i rv'd. other than that, given how all the other edits pretty clearly violate WP:NPOV WP:CITE and WP:AWW, i can't see a reason to keep them in. "good faith" doesn't really cut it with an article attempting any kind of credibility.

i'll avoid reverting or changing any of it for a couple of days, to see if the anon users, or anyone else, comes along to make it a tad more sensible and cite the additions that should be in there if reliable (the nichols/ecoffey thing and the edits to the last section). the reason i'm keen to keep this article as NPOV and referenced as possible is mostly down to trolling by the likes of TDC, who in the past has niggled over and outrighted deleted completely reliable sources, and will probably turn this article into another battlefield given half a chance. --Deadflagblues 13:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the editor who made the first block revert to the anonymous, one-time, 64.149.46.84’s edits, as well as making a subsequent edit, I feel a certain obligation to remark on this matter since I may have been partially responsible for causing it. This stems from the fact that I made the revert without comment and the criticism that I got that for that was, on the whole, fair. We should have the courtesy to explain our actions and our edits.

After reading 64.149.46.84’s edits, I firmly believe that any unbiased editor would come to the conclusion that these edits were, almost in their entirety, done with the deliberate intent to persuade and influence the reader on controversial subject. I don’t feel that the question is whether they were for or against Peltier (they were clearly supportive) rather the larger issue here is how to address extensive editing by an anonymous one-time editor whose work is both unsourced and biased. We essentially have two options: 1) keep the edits and attempt to re-edit/rework them, or 2) do a complete revert and then re-edit in any pertinent and citable information. There is a third option, of course, and that is to do nothing, but I think we all agree that that option cuts the cheese, not the mustard.

In this particular instance, I feel the first option is not really a viable one. The problem is the time involved in going back and attempting to reword, rework and cite the numerous edits made by our unknown editor from Oklahoma. While this process is taking place edits that we acknowledge as being POV are left on the page until a conscientious editor has the opportunity to correct them, and there’s no telling how long that will take. Based on that, I must concur with Deadflagblues and go with the second option as our preferred path.

Having said all that, there are actually two positive things about the work by 64.149.46.84 that I would like to point out. The first is that their work is very well written, biased to be sure, but with a good grasp of the King’s English. The second is the edit to the reply made by Peltier to Darlene “Kamook” Nichols’ testimony. Fleshing out a quote is rarely a bad thing, particularly when it helps to remove any doubt as to what the person being quoted was actually trying to say, and I say this as the editor who inserted the brief quote from Peltier in the first place. I would be a little hesitant to keep in the part about the romance between Nichols and Ecoffey. It’s not so much that I find it gossipy, but I think we all can admit that it’s going to be a bit dicey trying to properly cite the pivotal aspect of their romance which is, of course, whether or not Nichols turned away from the Peltier camp before or after she went horizontal with Ecoffey. Ah l’amour, why must you mock us all?

In the meantime, despite my belief that the edits should be reverted in full, I’ll take the path of least resistance and pick away at 64.149.46.84’s edits. After all, while there is Wikipedia policy against using weasel words, there isn’t one against being a weasel while you edit… Sláinte! Cafe Irlandais 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of Nichols/Ecoffey relationship

Please justify inclusion of this relationship in the Peltier article. Why should the sex life of anyone other than Peltier be addressed in the Peltier article? How is it relevant to the court case section in which it is included? It appears to me to be a back-door way of implying that Ecoffey had some untoward influence on Nichols that caused her to lie about Peltier's guilt. But of course, that cannot possibly be established, and so instead their relationship is invoked to create a haunting spectre of malfeasance. Does the fact that two people have a relationship really constitute evidence that one of them lied about a third party? Is the inclusion of this relationship simple POV-mongering, or is there some hard evidence that Nichols lied on the stand?Verklempt 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It puts a different light on her as a witness. Peltier himself said (february 2004) that Nichols statement was false, yet he could not explain it by the FBI money and thought she might have been coerced to deliver it. The news about the marriage (september 2004) brings this into a different light and certainly doesn't improve her credibility in this case. Which is why I think it's relevant. It probably should be slightly rewritten (romantic relationship, blossomed... smells of a bad novel).--Caranorn 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this is that a sexual relationship does not constitute evidence of any malfeasance by either party to that relationship. Please rewrite the passage in an NPOV fashion and post it here in the talk page for discussion.Verklempt 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I will try tomorrow or in a few days. Right now I can't really focus as I'm having a bad cold... Concerning malfeasance I wonder what FBI (or BIA) policy is on sexual relations with witnesses, certainly this relationship doesn't seem entirely ethical.--Caranorn 23:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid point--the relationship may have been unethical on Ecoffey's part, if initiated when Nichols was under his supervision as a witness. But no lapse in ethics on Ecoffey's part is proven, and even if it were it is still not evidence that Nichols lied on the stand. So even bearing that in mind, I still do not see much direct relevance for this article.Verklempt 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Trial Irregularities section

This section is completely unsourced now. This needs to be remedied.Verklempt 22:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another source

The book "Broken: The Troubled Past and Uncertain Future of the FBI" by Richard Gid Powers (something of an FBI insider) devotes a stretch of pages to Wounded Knee. There is some information in there not in the article (i.e. the defensive wound Williams recieved took off three of his fingers), but I don't feel it would be wise to use this text itself as a reference. It does, however, have quite a few notes not referenced in this article on pages 480-481. --Edwin Herdman 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wounded Knee/Pine Ridge confusion

There was a link to "Main article: Wounded Knee Incident," which does not belong as that incident happened before the shootout leading to the deaths of agents Williams, Coler, and of Joe Stuntz Killsright. I would like an article about the Pine Ridge incident, but in the meantime I am deleting the Wounded Knee redirect as that is not directly related. --Edwin Herdman 06:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard this chapter of the story. It feels like disinformation.

On September 9, 1975, Peltier purchased a Plymouth station wagon in Denver, Colorado. The FBI sent out descriptions of it and a recreational vehicle (RV) in which Peltier and associates were believed to be traveling. An Oregon State Trooper stopped the vehicles based on the descriptions and ordered the driver of the RV to exit, but after a brief exchange of gunfire, Peltier escaped on foot. Authorities later identified the driver as Peltier. Agent Coler's handgun was found in a bag under the front seat of the RV, where authorities reported also finding Peltier's thumbprint.

The FBI didn't say this until after the other guys (Dino Butler and Robideau I think) were found innocent by a jury based on the right of self defense.

The FBI reported Williams had received a defensive wound from a bullet which passed through his right hand into his head, killing him instantly. Coler, incapacitated from earlier bullet wounds, had been shot twice in the head execution style. In total 125 bullet holes were found in the agents' vehicles, many from a .223 (5.56 mm) rifle. The FBI investigation concluded the agents were killed at close range by the same .223 caliber rifle.

Peltier's innocence is less important than the murders of the hundred or so Indians who were killed allegedly by Dick Wilson's Guardians of the Oglala Nation, GOONs, who were allegedly armed by the FBI as a part of the COINTELPRO.

Almost all of these murders were explained by an FBI report in 2000. Don't buy into the hype.

Aswick 16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Butler and Robideau were not "found innocent" in the aiding and abetting of the killing of the FBI agents. They were found "not guilty by reason of self defense." That means, even if they did take part in the killing of the agents, this was excusable because there was a reasonable belief that they were defending their lives, and the lives of others. These little differences are important. And I disagree that the murders during Dick Wilson's GOON Squad Reign of Terror are more important than Leonard. Dick Wilson is dead. Leonard is alive. He's the only one we can help. The Looking Cloud conviction is proof that justice can be had for those people, even if it comes very slowly. And no... all of those murders were NOT explained any any FBI report. Where did you get that? Actually... if you can cite your source, I will check it out.Bigdatut (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

American Murderer category

The category is obviously apropos, given that Peltier is convicted of multiple murders. I don't understand why folks keep deleting it.Verklempt 23:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a POV application of that category. His conviction is considered unsafe by many notables and he himself is widely considered to be a political prisoner, plus he's right in the middle of an appeal. And less of the snidyness please editors. -- maxrspct ping me 23:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it a POV application? The man was convicted decades ago. He's been appealing non-stop ever since and never gotten anywhere, so that's a non-starter. Being a political prisoner and a convicted murderer are not mutually exclusive categories. They are both appropriate for this article. If one comes out because it is POV, then the other one must come out also.Verklempt 23:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your judgement over the number of appeals or his movement through the process is not relevent to his status and is opinion plus is not really an argument for his losing credibility. The murderer category should really be renamed because of articles like this. Peltier's case is exceptional and highly politicized and I think it is vindictive to categorize his biographical article at this present time. -- maxrspct ping me 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also.. The categories do clash. If it is notable that he is considered a political prisoner by various notables and organizations, who are casting doubt on his conviction as unsafe then the murderer category is misleading as it is a blanket category that is obviously notably indoubt. The court judgement is not the only factor that is taken into consideration by wikipedia which encompasses extra-legal information that can balance out the official status of..in this case Peltier. A different category perhaps? -- maxrspct ping me 00:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Leonard's appeal: He is currently appealing his parole status, not his conviction. His appeals of his murder conviction have been exhausted. So his status as a convicted murderer in not in flux and not in doubt. Re the AM category, here is the logical problem: The rationale for including the political prisoner category is that some people -- Amnesty International, various celebrities, etc. -- consider him to be one. Fair enough. But some people--a jury, the FBI, various judges--also consider him to be a murderer. Why should we retain one category but not the other? Isn't it taking sides to say he's one but not the other? How can it possibly be NPOV to include one of those categories but not the other?Verklempt 00:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me update this -- I cannot find any evidence of any type of appeal currently in progress. I am willing to assume that there is some kind of motion in the works -- there always is with this guy. But I want you to demonstrate that Peltier's status as a convicted murderer is still under appeal, given that this is your rationale for excluding the AM category.Verklempt 00:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

From the article - 'Leonard Peltier is waiting for a decision on his 13 February 2006 appeal over his rejected 2005 Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence' - blah. maxrspct ping me 14:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

1)That appeal was already decided against Peltier last year. I am updating the article to reflect this development. 2) Even if the appeal were still in play, it involves a question of sentencing, not guilt. Peltier exhausted his appeals on the issue of his culpability in the murders back in 1993. 3) You still haven't adressed the logical contradiction involved in including one controversial category while excluding another.Verklempt 20:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The category would really fit in with victor's justice. I don't really have anything more to say bar what i've said above which you have just ignored. Again - his conviction has been seen as unsafe by many outside the US justice system. The whole circumstances surrounding the events leading up to his arrest plus the trial and beyond are obviously highly politicized and he's considered a political prisoner. The question over his sentencing and the current appeal are part of the exceptional circumstances. If the the category was 'convicted (of) murder(erer)' i may be persuaded to leave it in. I did suggest a different category would be very much preferable. The cat is just too blanket for this one obviously. Look at the whole thing with FBI and comments by .. oh has it been taken out? This articles been evicerated bigtime. see [7]]

"Amnesty International considers Leonard Peltier to be a political prisoner whose avenues of redress have long been exhausted.... Amnesty International recognizes that a retrial is no longer a feasible option and believes that Leonard Peltier should be immediately and unconditionally released."

Yeah theres no going back.. he has been convicted. But labelling him a murderer with all the notable evidence and information supplied inside and outside the courtroom makes a mockery of the article. Wikipedia isn't CrimeLibrary.com . Folk seem to just want to go around putting this inappropriate category on political detainees they don't like or would like to see die in jail. Sick. -- maxrspct ping me 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've just outlined an unabashed POV motivation for retaining one controversial category while excluding the other. I say that NPOV demands that either both stay, or both go. Picking and choosing involves original research and POV, and cannot be sustained under Wikipedia policy. Also, please pay attention: THERE IS NO CURRENT APPEAL ON HIS MURDER CONVICTION. Verklempt 22:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Its just my editorial opinion on the article ..as yours supposedly is. I agree with the top of page comment by user RevDave: Category talk:Murderers. Leave them both in if you wish but i will aim to rename the category. -- maxrspct ping me 22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus on the "American murderers" category talk page is to change the name to "Americans convicted of murder." After that name change occurs, Peltier could go back into the category, but putting him in the "American murderers" category is POV pushing to the extreme and a BLP violation. After the category name change occurs we can put the category back, IMHO. csloat 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to changing the category name. I think the invocation of the BLP is inappropriate, given the fact that Peltier has been convicted by a jury, heard by all of the relevant appellate courts, and apparently confessed to several individuals according to the Indian press and to court testimony. If the AM category violates BLP for Peltier, then it violates it for every living person the category is applied to.Verklempt 00:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that it violates WP:BLP for a lot of other people too; pretty much anyone whose conviction was strongly contested by a significant number of voices published in reliable sources. That's why the name of the category needs to be changed; calling someone a "murderer" is unavoidably POV, whereas saying someone was "convicted of murder" is a statement of fact. I tried to change the category name myself but it didnt work - I believe an admin has to do it. Alternatively, I may simply put the category up for AfD. csloat 01:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it did violate that biographies policy. -- maxrspct ping me 23:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The category's definition states "Americans who have been convicted of — or are generally believed by American law enforcement authorities to have been guilty of — murder, including conspirators and those with criminal liability. Note that some listed are convicted, but generally believed not guilty, or improperly convicted." - he clearly fits. Chang the category first if you want to remove this . Teens! 02:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Change the category title to fit the description, then it can be used here. I've already tried to change the category title, and the talk page supports such a change, so please allow time for the change to occur (or press for it yourself). There is no need to violate BLP on this page. csloat 02:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If/when the category title is changed, we can use the new name. But at the moment, the category fits, and there is no BLP vioaltion involved. Teens! 16:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bottom-line: He should be considered an American Murderer. If his conviction is overturned then the tag should be removed. However, at this moment in time he's considered a convicted killer. Whether or not some activists believe he's guilty or not shouldn't influence his murderer status. Rambone (Talk) 17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: Until the category name is changed, it cannot be used here without violating WP:BLP. See discussion above. Teens!'s assertions are meaningless as he makes no argument (and, frankly, he appears to be stalking my edits and reverting them on principle rather than actually participating in the discussion). csloat 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have quoted the category's definition to you, and Peltier fits. If you succeed in changing the category name, that's fine, but until then, there's no reason to exclude a relevant category which he clearly fits. And you might want to give the serious and spurious accusation of stalking some thought. Teens! 23:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The category description and title do not match up; someone looking at this page may or may not click through. Until the title matches the description, the title should not be used on this page. As for stalking, all I know is you suddenly showed up on a number of pages where you had no prior history, and your main course of action was to revert edits I had made to those pages. I note that you also voted on the CfD without signing. Perhaps it's all a coincidence but it seems a bit odd, no? csloat 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• • As long as the category exists on Wikipedia, it applies to Leonard Peltier. It's a matter of public record. He's a convicted killer, regardless of what some people think. For example, even though most people believe O.J. Simpson is a murderer, it would violate Wikipedia rules to add the "American murderer" category to him because he was never convicted. However, Peltier was convicted and has never had a successful appeal to date. Rambone (Talk) 18:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, so "Americans convicted of murder" would be an appropriate category for Mr. Peltier, but "American murderers" would not. The category can be changed first, and then it can be used here. csloat 19:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it seems this category should also be included if we are going to be including vague category names such as "murderers." csloat 01:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Peltier was convicted by 12 jurors of two counts of first degree murder, for killing two unarmed and defenseless FBI agents. His multiple appeals have gone all the way to the Supreme Court (who declined to hear it), and have all been declined. By definition of the law, this category, is correct.

On the Question of fact did Peltier murder the two agents, the jury found that he did. This is a pretty high standard. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but that high standard is not reflected in the category name. csloat 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for his fame/notablility lies with the questions, contoversy and contentiousness surrounding his conviction and his political prisoner status. This alone is enough to exclude this particular category under WP:BLP. Like I said before - the legal system does not overrule everything and wikipedia takes all information regarding the case.. and some may balance out the neccesity of such a category -- maxrspct ping me 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you brought up policy, lets recap:

From WP:BLP

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

For example, Category:Criminals should only be added if the incident is relevant to the person's notability; it has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

The murderer category would appear to meet all the criteria given for Peltier's inlcusion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if you want the U.S government, law enforcement and justice system to override all other parties to the issues. Re: what i've said before. The whole article is about the controversy surrounding the siege, Peltier, his trial, conviction and sentencing. --maxrspct ping me 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Face it. Twelve jurors who sat through the trial, who listened to and saw the witnesses and took in all of the evidence, unanimously concluded there was no reasonable doubt that your boy was a killer. So stop being unreasonable, get off your hippie bandwagon, and either come to terms with the fact that you idolize a killer or find yourselves another hero. takethemud (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

COINTELPRO catgory

While investigating the categories, I noticed that the COINTELPRO target category is on this article. That category is for people who are confirmed targets of COINTELPRO. I have seen no evidence that the FBI ever took interest in Peltier during the COINTELPRO period. The Churchill book does not document this (not that I would trust anything Churchill writes).Verklempt 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read it? -- maxrspct ping me 00:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read it and found many errors and fabrications in it. Where does Churchill purport to demonstrate that Peltier was a confirmed target of COINTELPRO? He doesn't do it on the url you gave. Since the COINTELPRO era ends in 1971, I don't he'd be able to show that Peltier was ever a target.Verklempt 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Blossoming marriage

That disclaimer by Verklempt is pure opinion. Shameful --maxrspct ping me 09:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not pure opinion. I challenge you to provide even a single data point demonstrating any impropriety in this relationship, or demonstrating any substantive link to Peltier. I'm still waiting for a justification of why the sexual history of 3rd parties should be included in this article. You know exactly why it was inserted. The goal is to raise the whiff of Ecoffey suborning perjury from his girlfriend Nichols. But since there is no evidence of that, we just put out that they're sleeping together, and invite readers to come to that conclusion. If there's another reason for including sexual histories of non-related parties, I'm open to hearing it.Verklempt 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You do not type in "There is no evidence of x or y" without a source to substantiate that; otherwise it is editorializing, whether it is true or not. We would not have a paragraph without sources stating "There is no evidence that Peltier is an alien from Mars" or "There is no evidence that Peltier murdered his wife," even though those statements are factual. Find a source or leave your original research out of here. csloat 18:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is logically impossible to prove a negative. If you think that Nichols or Ecoffey engaged in malfeasance, the onus is on you to provide the evidence. If you cannot provide evidence of malfeasance, then the para should come out. Simply being married is not evidence that anyone did anything wrong. Again, I am requesting you to provide evidence of malfeasance. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing, then the para should come out altogether.Verklempt 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking the rest of the paragraph out is a superior solution to adding original research speculation. But if there are published questions about malfeasance in reliable sources, that material should stay in, without the "there is no evidence" qualifiers. csloat 01:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that, if you can cite such evidence.Verklempt 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't, but I'm not the one arguing for it. I'm simply arguing for the exclusion of additional WP:OR. csloat 05:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm having troubleunderstanding your position. If you are not advocating the inclusion of the Ecoffey marraige, then why did you revert my excision of said marriage? I think if it stays in, then it needs context to explain why it is relevant, and it needs to be subtantiated with evidence that demonstrates that relevance.Verklempt 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If I did that, it was in error - I meant only to delete your inclusion of the information such as "There was no evidence of ___" that you added to that section. Sorry about that. I agree with you that if the rest stays in it should be substantiated. csloat 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added that it was an issue in the Looking Cloud trial. No conclusion being made by me though. >> [8] ^_^ -- maxrspct ping me 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the evidence that their relationship had already begun by the trial, or that it was an issue at the trial?Verklempt 21:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Ellison passage

What's the point of this new addition? Bruce Ellison – who has been Leonard Peltier's lawyer since the 1970s -- pled the fifth amendment against self-incrimination and refused to testify at the grand jury hearings leading up to the trial in 2003. Note how the text given as reference is unrelated to the claim other then that Bruce Ellison belongs to the Peltier legal team. In short this seems to be a case of don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You object to the Nichols-Ecoffey material and introduce the Ellison material to disrupt the article... Hopefully my interpretation is mistaken and you will explain the purpouse of your addition.--Caranorn 21:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't think it's relevant that Peltier's lawyer thinks he might incriminate himself if he testifies in a trial about a murder allegedly committed to protect Peltier from a suspected informer? I think it's fascinating. There may well be better ways of writing it up, but I offer a first draft for you to improve upon.Verklempt 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What is claimed about pleading the 5th?? --maxrspct ping me 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question.Verklempt 02:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, in an American court, pleading that testifying might tend to inciriminate you is a standard form, invoking the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Drawing conclusions from it would be OR; especially improper since Peltier is still alive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The article simply reports that he took the 5th. It doesn't draw a conclusion.Verklempt 21:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting a conclusion may be worse; see WP:SYNTH; unless there are reliable sources who have drawn it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is only one source, so it is not synthesizing.Verklempt 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand; placing it next to the facts from other sources in the same paragraph leads the reader to a conclusion; unless one of the sources draws it, we shouldn't either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question is:

Bruce Ellison – who has been Leonard Peltier's lawyer since the 1970s -- pled the fifth amendment against self-incrimination and refused to testify at the grand jury hearings leading up to the trial in 2003.<:ref>Aquash Murder Case Timeline by Paul DeMain, NFIChttp://www.jfamr.org/trialtime.html; http://www.freepeltier.org/speakers_bureau.htm<:/ref>

What conclusion does it lead to, other than he refused to testify becaue it might incriminate him?Verklempt 01:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that the reference does not back up the assertion that Ellison pleaded the fifth, the only reason I didn't delete this addition in the first place was that I assume good faith and that he indeed did as you say. On the other hand I still don't see how this belongs in that part of the article.--Caranorn 12:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read it carefully enough. I have added another cite also.Verklempt 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And there are many tactical reasons to plead the fifth; we are writing for a lay audience, who cannot be counted on to realize this. Inferring criminal conduct from such a decision is un-called for, unless we have a source that does so; and then they should be cited by name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the passage to state exactly what the federal prosecutor said. If you have a better way to phrase it, then please rewrite it instead of deleting it.Verklempt 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

gun to head of Aquash...

This recent addition by Verklempt is problematic I feel: Other witnesses have testified that once Aquash came under suspicion of being an informant, Peltier interrogated her on the matter while holding a gun to her head. He has so far provided three internet references that are supposed to back this claim up, yet none talks about such a witness to Peltier holding a gun to Aquash's head. Considering how I've asked for a reference twice now only to see three bogus ones I have to start doubting Verklempt's good faith on this issue. So the question is, can anyone verify whether his fourth (book) reference backs up that claim?--Caranorn 19:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the references substantiate that Peltier interrogated Aquash, or participated in her interrogation. Two of them are by Bob Robideau, who was present at that interrogation, and who has been head of Peltier's defense committee. The book by Steve Hendricks references Peltier's threatening Aquash with a gun during the interrogation on p. 202, as does the court document that I had cited earlier. The Hendricks book cites to people who had been told abou the gunpoint interrogation by Aquash herself. So where's the problem?Verklempt 20:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you said that Peltier participated in Aquash's interogation I'd have no problem with it, but considering how Aquash was murdered by gunshot to the head I find the statement that Peltier supposedly interrogated her by holding a gun to her head disturbing to say the least, particularly as the only source (I can't comment on the book as I don't have it) to mention that situation is clearly dealing in rumours.--Caranorn 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The source that describes the event using the word "rumors" is the prosecutor's response to an appeal that complains of hearsay evidence. The prosecutor is carefully distinguishing between evidence properly entered into the record at trial, and other evidence, i.e. "rumors." Because the prosecution did not present a direct witness to this interrogation, it would have been considered hearsay at the trial. Ergo the word "rumors."

However, that does not mean that there are no direct witnesses, and that the various journalists who've published on this incident have not spoken with those witnesses. Have a look at p. 202 in Hendricks. Also look at the NFIC timeline, which I will enter in a minute. Those are two credible, published journalistic sources that mention the gun threat during the interrogation. Finally, no one has ever accused Peltier of shooting Aquash. The theory of the prosecution was that Aquash was killed by others to protect Peltier. The Farmington interrogation happened many months prior to the murder.Verklempt 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that no one has accused Peltier of shooting Aquash, but the description you give of the interrogation seems similar to the way she ended up getting killed which I find disturbing. Assuming your book source indeed provides more then rumours to those exact events I have no problem to the inclusion.--Caranorn 12:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by rumors. Hendricks reports that Aquash told the story to several friends. In some version the gun was to her head. Other people remember the gun being stuck in her mouth. But Hendricks describes the stories as being told by Anna Mae herself.Verklempt 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

removal of works about peltier

Removing a source because it wasn't peer-reviewed is a joke. It's a well-known work about Peltier and comments about Churchill losing his job are beside the point. It is presented here as a work about Peltier, not a peer-reviewed work and not even an unplagiarized work (though Churchill was not accused of plagiarizing in this work, to my knowledge). It's also well-known that the misconduct investigation was politicized and was instigated as a result of his idiotic comment after 911. Churchill claims the investigation was retribution and has filed a lawsuit to that effect. All of which is beside the point -- this is a notable work about Peltier and it should not be removed. csloat (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How can a work by a proven fabricator and falsifier be possibly be considered a reliable source under WP:RS?Verklempt (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That section does not require any sourcing of any kind because it is merely a list of Books or articles about Peltier . Albion moonlight (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You should read WP:RS, verklempt, it says nothing about accusations of plagiarism. And those charges are disputed and controversial. And, as Albion points out, that is a list of works about Peltier, and that is indeed a published work about Peltier. csloat (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) The central requirement is that the source must be "reliable". Plagiarism is irrelevant here. The problem is fabrication and falsification. While Churchill disputes the charges, there is no serious controversy. At least four different articles by specialists in the field have been published outlining Churchill's research fraud. There has been no response from Churchill or his handful of defenders in the scholarly literature. One hundred percent of Churchill's peers at CU who examined the charges agreed that he had committed research misconduct. Their only disagreement was over the appropriate sanction. His culpability is well established. (2) So you're saying that anything can be put into the bibliography list as long as it has to do with Peltier? There are no standards at all for the bibliography, and WP:RS only applies to the endnote cites? If that is indeed your argument, I think we have a larger issue than these two books, and that an RFC of sorts is called for to sort out policy.Verklempt (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Peltier's admission

Maxrespect deletes Peltier's admission that he shot at the agents because the source is "vague/fringe". Actually, the book was published by a well-known scholarly press, and authored by an investigative journalist who has a long career as a staff reporter at the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. The reporter is citing a specific episode of "60 Minutes", a tv show on which Peltier appeared and admitted shooting at the FBIs. Maxrespect's only comment is that this is a "vague/fringe" source. Please take care to learn about the topic and the sources before making such bogus accusations and deleting well-sourced material.Verklempt (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that reference is neither vague nor fringe, and it is obviously verifiable.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why has it never been mentioned before here or elsewhere? One investigatative reporter? Are there clips of this admission around? Violates BLP as there is much more evidence that LP disputes his conviction etc ad infinitum. Too fringe and isolated - where is book full details? (post them here) --maxrspct ping me 21:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I see the problem here. You are unfamiliar with the details of this topic, and thus you misunderstand the sentence. On 60 Minutes, Peltier admits to being present at the firefight and shooting at the agents. He still publicly denies that he was the individual who committed the close up, execution style murder after the agents were already wounded. On the other hand, Peltier has admitted in private to a number of people that he was the murderer. He is not consistent in his renditions. I will rewrite the sentence to make it more clear to readers such as you who don't know the topic very well.Verklempt (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the claim that Peltier "admitted in private to a number of people that he was the murderer" that people have a problem with, not the claim that he admitted shooting back at the firefight on 60 Minutes, which is easily verifiable. csloat (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this statement as altering the fact that LP disputes the murder charges, which he also quite obviously and verifiably does - that doesn't mean that he couldn't at some time have admitted to firing at the agents. I am trying to find other independent sources to verify the 1990 "confession". ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

--- I have researched this case extensively and I have never come across any mention of Peltier confessing to shooting the agents. If it does exist, I would like to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International

Please stop censoring the Amnesty International information. To quote directly: "Amnesty International considers Peltier to be a political prisoner whose avenues to legal redress have long been exhausted."[9] You are censoring the link as well when you revert. Please stop it.csloat (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Undocumented Statements

Now it's 2009 and this article still has way too many statements (mostly supporting the government's version of events, it seems to me) that lack credible documentation and have been marked as "Citation needed" for much too long. Is there a procedure on Wikipedia for eventually removing undocumented/unsupported statements if they've been marked "Citation needed" for a long time and nothing has been done about it? - Mark Dixon (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous comment expressed the concern that “way too many statements… lack credible documentation and have been marked as "Citation needed" for much too long”. So the question is how long is “much too long”? Currently there are 26 statements that have been saddled with the “citation needed” tag. Of these, 25 were added just last week in one brutal edit by a one time editor with the vast majority containing the rather curious comment “If the source is ultimately from the Peltier trial, please indicate whether the same fact was admitted in the Robideau/Butler trials, since they were found not guilty.” (I’m not exactly sure what this editor has in mind, and nor will I speculate.) The oldest tag is from 12 December 2008 and it seems to be a legitimate citation request concerning the letter sent from FBI Director Freeh in 2000 to then President Clinton dealing with the possibility of Peltier receiving clemency from Clinton. Previously the oldest one dated back to 16 July 2006 and it appeared to be asking for a reference to back up a statement that no longer is in the article and, as such, I deleted the tag. Even allowing for the older tag, that would still mean that almost all of the tags are actually very recent edits. I would offer that the real question is whether or not all these tags are necessary rather than if they have been here too long. Hammersbach (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems that not all of these tags are necessary. ClovisPt (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed all those idiotic tags and put one at the beginning of the section. 68.101.130.214 (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary tag

Recently I made an edit to this article specifically deleting the “citation needed” tag in the Early Life section. This edit was reverted and an admonition was left on my discussion page. (Hmmm…) When I made this edit I left a comment on the discussion page that the tag “appeared to be asking for a reference to back up a statement that no longer is in the article”. The tag was originally left on 16 July 2006 and this is how the section read then:

“Peltier was born on the Anishinaabe (Chippewa) Turtle Mountain Reservation in North Dakota. He came from a family of 13 brothers and sisters. Peltier became involved in the American Indian Movement (AIM), eventually becoming the only person to serve a lengthy prison term for any of numerous incidents arising from the conflicts that occurred on the Pine Ridge Reservation in the early 1970s.”

And how it reads now:

“Leonard Peltier was born on September 12, 1944 in Grand Forks, North Dakota, the son of Leo Peltier and Alvina Robideau. He spent his early years living with his grandparents on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. Peltier became involved in the American Indian Movement (AIM), and eventually in the conflicts that occurred on the Pine Ridge Reservation in the early 1970s.”

Since the tag has been in place since it was first left and the section has undergone many changes we left are with the fact that one of three things must have happened. The first is that although the section has been edited, the questionable fact has remained. Looking at the two versions there are only three facts that have remained from then until now. They are: 1) Peltier was born, 2) Peltier became involved in the American Indian Movement (AIM), and 3) conflicts occurred on the Pine Ridge Reservation in the early 1970s. Since “citation needed” tags are used when an editor feels that a fact is not obviously true, I openly question how it could reasonably be applied to any of these three very obvious facts. The second is that an editor added a fact that they themselves questioned and thought it best to leave the tag just in case. This is highly unlikely. People add facts to articles because they want them to be known and believed, not treated with suspicion. The third possibility is that the questionable fact was deleted, but the tag wasn’t. Looking at the edit history of this article, which I did prior to my initial edit, it is difficult not to come to this conclusion. For this reason I have removed the tag. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. ClovisPt (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Peltier moved to Lewisburg

I wanted to say Peltier was moved to Lewisberg.76.214.127.125 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

Can someone find an image of Peltier that we can use here? Kingturtle (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Some Links

Jim Page on Leonard Peltier

I will try to share some useful links. Kasaalan (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources/Citations to court opinion

Since some of the biographical information is unsourced, someone may want to look to the court opinions. I know the first 8th Circuit opinion is United States v. Peltier, 585 F.2d 314 (8th Cir. 1978). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.130.247 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Effects on pop culture

The current article mentions Rage Against the Machine's music video, I know that Toad the Wet Sprocket's "Crazy Life" is about Peltier, and I am sure there are more. I am going to try to hunt down some more examples. Scottux (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Vivienne Westwood has a range "Leonard Peltier is innocent".(Comment by user 94.192.127.44)

"Politcal" background section

Hmmm… recently an editor restored a very large addition to this article, one which I had deleted rather quickly after a different, anonymous, one-time editor had added it this article. The original edit was an attempt to provide what the anonymous editor called a “political background section”. I deleted that edit with the comment “NPOV, please…” I was rather surprised that it was re-added with the complaint that its deletion did not come with a “TP rationale for removal”. I would offer any neutral editor who read the original addition in its entirety would very quickly come to basically the same conclusion that I did; namely that it is highly biased, completely unreferenced, poorly written, written in an editorial rather than encyclopedic manner, and is a blatant attempt to frame that article from a very defined POV. So, I deleted it. In fact, I am deleting it again, as I will any edit that I find to be highly biased, written in an editorial rather than encyclopedic manner, and is a blatant attempt to frame the article from a very defined POV. (The ones that are poorly written and/or unreferenced I sometimes try to fix.) Again, NPOV, please… Hammersbach (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotes in the intro

Recently an editor added the following quote to the intro, “…while his imprisonment has come to signify ‘five centuries of unjust violence waged against Native Americans.’" I am not sure what the rationale for adding this remark was since the comment provided with the edit only said “adding remark + ref”, but I deleted the edit as I felt that, intentionally or not, it brought an imbalance to the intro, particularly since it appeared to be of a political nature rather than a factual comment as it relates to the events of the case. The edit was reintroduced with the comment “quoted and cited”. I find this to be rather curious. The mere fact that it is “quoted and cited” is, in and of itself, insufficient to warrant, justify or explain its inclusion in the article, and particularly in the intro. After all there are literally thousands of statements concerning this case ranging from the wickedly biased to the brutally factual, all of which can be “quoted and cited”, but does that mean that they should be included in the article?

Allowing that we should keep the quote from his supporters in the lead, (in this case from an editorial from Harvey Wasserman) would it not then be appropriate to add a citable quote from his non-supporters? The purpose, of course, would be to ensure balance and neutrality. Here is an example of a pairing: Some supporters and organizations consider him to be a political prisoner, while his imprisonment has come to signify "five centuries of unjust violence waged against Native Americans. Others within the Native American community have conceded Peltier’s guilt with an "unnamed delegation" with knowledge of the incident admitting to Paul DeMain, publisher of News from Indian Country, that "Peltier was responsible for the close range execution of the agents..." Since both of these statements are “quoted and cited”, and are on opposite sides of the fence, does that mean that they should merit inclusion in the lead?

For me the real issue is this, intros should be simple; short and sweet with bland and neutral statements about the facts of the subject which offer a concise overview. This is particularly the case when they are about controversial subjects, such as this article. As such, I don’t believe that either of the two quotes listed above has a place in the lead, but perhaps in the article itself. But then, the DeMain quote is already included and as for the Wasserman quote, perhaps “if presented in the appropriate context.”

On a side note, why is the fact about Peltier getting beaten at Canaan Federal Penitentiary in the intro? All things considered, why does this event rate such a prominent mention? Just curious … Hammersbach (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Parole Hearing

Peltier was granted a parole hearing on July 28, 2009. The parole decision has not yet been announced, but is due any day now. I'll edit the article to reflect this.

Wideaperture (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

--- Just heard on the radio ... Looks like it's a no.

Adding titles

I added some titles to the section titled "Post-trial debate and developments". They probably aren't the best titles but without them the section appeared to be just a big glob of words. I am sure a second set of eyes could improve what I tried to do. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding titles

I added some titles to the section titled "Post-trial debate and developments". They probably aren't the best titles but without them the section appeared to be just a big glob of words. I am sure a second set of eyes could improve what I tried to do. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A question of balance

Is this article neutral, in the sense of Wikipedia:NPOV? Or is it intended to show that the conviction was unjustified?

It seems that only one side is presented, i.e., the doubts about the fairness or correctness of the case against him. But I did not see nearly as much information about confidence about the case against him. A casual reading indicates that the man was railroaded. Is this what we are trying to convey?

I'll wait a few days, and if there's no answer I'll put a {{POV}} tag on the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems balanced to me. Contains info about various appeals rejected and about Peltier's changing admissions/statements over time, and about the Aquash case. Any article about any controversial imprisonment necessarily contains extensive info regarding how the validity of the conviction has been publicly questioned (that is, not opinions on the trial on the part of Wikipedia editors but publicly citable doubts about the case). Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Another concern I have about this article is that it doesn't mention the fact that, after his conviction and before his appeal, Peltier escaped from prison. I have read that he did so because he was informed, supposedly by another American Indian prisoner (now deceased), that the FBI as sending in a hitman to kill him. His subsequent recapture resulted in several years being added to his sentence. Why is this not included?Bigdatut (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)