Talk:1954 United States Capitol shooting

message: I thought this incedent happened March 4, 1954
and didn't President Jimmy Carter parden them.
:First of all, you should remember to sign these pages so people can talk to you if they need to.  Second, according to this article, it was on the 1st and it says that "President Carter freed the Puerto Ricans in 1979 after they had served 25 years in prison. Although the Carter White House denied any connection, their release coincided with Fidel Castro's release of several Americans being held in Cuba on espionage charges." --Ricky81682 07:42, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
:True; the incident is described in the Congressional Record entry for the day, 1 March 1954. I've personally read it. Demf 02:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm...while it is true that Carter was not president in 1954, neither was Harry Truman.  -Grammaticus Repairo 05:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I added numerous sources and citations, in response to templates. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and citations added 

message: This article is not about the entire history of the Puerto Rican Independence Movement, nor about the history of the Nationalist Party. It is inappropriate to list all the 19thc. leaders, all the male and female members of the Nationalist Party, as well as articles and people who have already been referenced in the article with wikilinks. Please stick to the topic of each article.Parkwells (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reduce "See also" list

message: All articles about the assassination attempt of Truman, the 1950s revolts, and the independence movement lack the fact that in a plebiscite, the people voted in 1952 by nearly 82% in favor of the constitution for the "Free Associated State". I will be adding this with cite.Parkwells (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Add results of plebiscite

message: This page and the pages on the individual shooters appear to be heavily biased in their favor.  Nothing negative at all is said about them, and the attack is constantly referenced as an incident of Puerto Ricans rebelling against an oppressive power.  If you look at any other article which involves an attack on government officials, the attackers are almost always described negatively.  Does it really make sense to have individuals who committed a mass shooting described in such a positive way, instead of being described as terrorists?  They were certainly attempting assassinations, but even that term seems to be lacking on the pages.  I really think someone needs to go over all the pages associated with the attack.  Describing the attackers in a positive light is one thing, but constantly referring to them in a positive manner without any content describing the attack in a negative manner is another thing entirely  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C463:2550:B570:DEE5:22A6:8042 (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased in favor of attackers, in need of more neutral editing. 

message: Does the word 'incident' really fit an armed attack? It did not happen by incident and doesn't seem minor. Perhaps 'attack' would work better.
:Well, it doesn't only say incident. It says "shooting incident". It's clear enough. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title