Talk:Paul Rose (political figure)

message: This article is a very good example of demagogic writing...
It is incomplete, inaccurate, presents facts out of context and adds useless details about matters not directly related to the subject in the sole purpose of pushing only one side of the story.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francois1723 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced "terrorist" by "militant" along with a pointer to a news article from the french state-owned media station that can be quoted as designating him as such. While other newspapers (like The Gazette) do designate him as a "terrorist" in their eulogy, I do not think they should be considered as a neutral source here, as they are widely known in Québec to be hostile to the sovereignty movement. For the record, CBC.ca, do not designate Paul Rose as a terrorist either.  --TheAnarcat (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

text: So it seems that people here are adamant at remembering Paul Rose as a terrorist or picturing the actions of the FLQ as terrorism. The word, according to wikipedia itself, is emotionnally loaded, and the definition is "controversial". It is especially controversial in Québec, where the view on the FLQ differs wildly from which side of the language divide you stand. Repeatedly treating Rose as a terrorist here without substanciated claims is pure flamebait and should stop. --TheAnarcat (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is loaded not on the linguistic divide, but on the moral divide. Killing, kidnapping, and acts of violence and intimidation are terrorist acts. It has nothing to do with speaking French or English. It has to do with presenting the subject from a whole world perspective, not a local perspective. Using "neutral" wording to report on a historical figure, or situation, in order to not reopen or "dwell" on past wounds is somewhat revisionist history, and a good way to move forward. It does not change the facts. Lets hope that the "militants" on both sides have learned from the past, so that history does not repeat. The important thing is a> is there need for a disambiguation, and if so is "Political figure" the correct one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete and demagogic 

message: Please stop undoing my edits to the cited events' year of occurrence. Check the link to the CBC story. It's the "October 1970 Crisis".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.38.12 (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 1970 Crisis 

message: I have removed the following passage from the article:
:Later evidence would prove the contrary. "A coroner’s inquest soon after the murder determined that Laporte had been strangled by a gold religious medal he wore around his neck. In a conversation wiretapped by police, Rose even admitted to his lawyer that he “finished” Laporte with the gold chain."A convicted murderer and an unrepentant terrorist, pockets of Quebec still view Paul Rose as a folk hero by Tristin Hopper, National Post 13/03/14
I have tried to find a secondary source for this claim, and the only one I could find also mentions quikcly that "The police officer who recorded the conversation told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Rose may have made the statement to cover up for another cell member." I believe this is reason enough to remove the section, according to Template:Verify_source, which says "If it is doubtful and potentially harmful, move the information to the talk page and ask for a source". --TheAnarcat (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A New York Times article also repeats a similar detail as  the national post quote here . I would say that should be enough for us, as Wikipedia editors. Mattnad (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, let me get this straight, what is being said here is that he admitted (confessed) to doing the deed, and that confession is being second guessed by speculation from some cop that he was covering for others, and because of this speculation we should not even include the confession in the article? Reminds me more or less of "selective memory", what is wrong with including his admission of guilt and the speculation that it was false? Are we not supposed to be unbiased, and be as complete as possible?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  responsability of the death of Pierre Laporte 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Paul Rose (political figure). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121108061136/http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/09/23/october-crisis-40th-anniversary.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/09/23/october-crisis-40th-anniversary.html#ixzz118ftKt6n
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suggest we change the article name to Paul Rose (terrorist).  Blockhouse321 (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Rose (political figure)

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion