Jump to content

Talk:Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Year of birth

[edit]

The infobox says that Lazcano is born in 1976, the article says he joined the army at the age of 28, then it says by the late 90's he was bribed by Cárdenas. 1976 + 28 = 2004 He was bribed before he joined the army? I think one of the numbers here is wrong. --Sckchui (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the spanish wikipedia, he actually joined the military when he was 17.Tapatio559 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Tapatio559[reply]
Are the years counted inclusively, or why do they make no sense? If he "defected" in 1998 after serving for 8 years, he should have joined in 1990. But being born 25 December 1974 that would make him pretty much 15 years old when joining up, rather than 17. Idontcareanymore (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP & NPOV problems?

[edit]

This article asserts that HLL has committed all sorts of crimes, that "his" people have been on one offensive or another, etc. Has this man been convicted of anything, or admitted to any of these charges? It seems to me that we have a real neutrality problem here. Most of the sources appear to be pure War on Drugs propaganda. For example, this seems like quite a controversial claim: "Since February 2010, Lazcano has been engaged in a violent turf war against his former employer/partner, the Gulf Cartel, throughout northern border states like Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon." The basis for this claim appears to be a quotation from a Mexican prosecutor. Since when does Wikipedia carry water for prosecutors? The article cited for this claim actually notes that experts/researchers are not in agreement about who is behind the violence. DickClarkMises (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe he is a violent criminal? The U.S. Department of state thinks so[1], the U.S. DEA thinks so [2], and so does the Attorney General of Mexico, the Mexican Army and the Mexican Marines, in addition of Time Magazine: "Violent urban legend has always swirled around Mexican drug traffickers, but few of them have ever set out to build a reputation as vicious as that of Heriberto Lazcano." [3] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not mention him being prosecuted for anything? Did he ever stand trial? Jim Michael (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead?

[edit]

The Attorney General and the Army deny that Lazcano was killed yesterday. Do we go by rumors or the official statement? BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your source for these denials? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official confirmation on his death?

[edit]

[12] BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His body is missing

[edit]

Milenio news has confirmed his body was taken by armed men in a morgue where the body was.

http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/14de99605b74e7ab9b33eaa142e2810e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.30.27 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of repercussions

[edit]

Although it pertains to future events, WP:CRYSTAL reads: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included..." I believe the section falls under that criteria. ComputerJA (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Stolen"?

[edit]

I get that that's the word the papers use, but is it legally theft, under Mexican law? Does a funeral home own a body? Doesn't a family have a right to make its own arrangements? If it's actually stealing, the article's fine. But, if not, we should use the more neutral "took", "recovered" or something similar. Yes, we base our info on reliable sources. But we're free to use our own words, especially with potentially misleading or loaded terms. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it was actually theft under Mexican law, to be honest. I'm fine with changing it to "took." ComputerJA (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have to go by the WP:RS, not legal interpretation: we are not laywers, we are editors. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
But we're not simple copywriters. Part of being an editor is making decisions. Wikipedia serves a different purpose than a newspaper, and has a whole other set of policies. If you have a source that says taking the body was legally theft, "stolen" is OK. But until then, I see it as a synonym for "took", with a slanted connotation (the news generally has an anti-criminal bias). "Stole" is often used in a non-technical way ("stole an election", "stole our hearts" "trying to steal our freedom"). Deciding whether the sources are being literal or rhetorical is interpretation. No interpretation is necessary to say "took"; all reliable sources agree it was taken. And it's a neutral word. So where's the problem? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Reference 6 "stolen" is even put in quotes: "Once more what could have been a success in the war against organized crime becomes a problem when the body is 'stolen,' " wrote Juan Ignacio Gil Anton on a Mexican political blog. "It happened with the Lord of the Skies. Will it happen with Lazca?" We know what quoting a word like that typically means. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice the lead here doesn't use the words "ruthless", "vicious" or "bloodthirsty" to describe the guy, though the leads of reliable sources often do. Is this also a problem? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most people don't have a problem differentiating between taking and stealing. Here are some examples: When someone finds money in the street, that's taking; when someone armed with a weapon walks into a bank, that's not taking, that's stealing. When a boy finds a candy bar in a park bench and eats it, that's taking; when he walks into a candy store and doesn't pay for it, that's not taking, that's stealing. I have changed the statement/s in question to show -- in quotes -- what the sources say. Don't revert them again. If you still have an objection, take it HERE. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
All yor examples have to do with property. Does the funeral home own the body of a guy who was given to them by the strangers who killed him? Not as clearcut. And do you not agree that reliable sources also use words like "took" "carried off" and "recovered"? When you remove them, aren't you doing the same thing I am? The only difference is I'm being neutral, and you're suggesting burying your own dead is a crime. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take it HERE. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
I think the problem has been solved by direct quoting. Dispute resolution is a last resort, or close enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is it necessary to word sentences like "According to Los Angeles Times, ... " when the reader can just click on the source and see it for himself? I think -- just me -- that the paragraph can run smoother without them. Do you feel strong about that? Best, ComputerJA (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree with you that there is some room for compromise on something like that. Here is how it currently reads:

According to the Wall Street Journal, "in an embarrassing twist...gunmen later burst into a funeral home and stole the dead man's body."[1] The Los Angeles Times elaborated that "before the government could even begin to celebrate such an important victory in its battle against the drug cartels, officials learned that an armed gang had invaded a funeral home and snatched the body."[2]

How do you suggest it could read instead, keeping in mind the recent controversy over the wording? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Direct, attributable quotes work much better here. Thanks for fixing that. I think "According to..." is the only way to deal with quotes, while having the prose flow naturally. But a citation always works better in other cases, such as "Lazcano is the most powerful cartel leader to be killed since the start of Mexico's drug war in 2006, according to Reuters." InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And I reverted my own edit unaware of the seemingly simultaneous notes above.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • I'd say we should simply paraphrase them. Maybe this can work:

Lazcano died in a shootout with the Mexican Navy on 7 October 2012. When the navy handed the corpse to the civil authorities and before any official announcements, gunmen stormed the funeral home and stole Lazcano's corpse.[1][2]

What do you think? ComputerJA (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd be back to square one on the "stole" thing. Would either of you object to "snatched" instead? It's what one of the references uses, and has a similar "sinister" slant to "stole", but without outright calling them thieves. Perfect compromise, no? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am with InedibleHulk on this one, that "direct, attributable quotes work much better here." Though I like your write up, ComputerJA, Hulk's seems like the slighly "lesser of two evils." My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
BTW, will we keep the quotes in the intro or simply move from "stole" to "snatched"? ComputerJA (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either of those ways is fine by me. The wording (not just that one word) in the quotes is more flowery and loaded than we could use "in Wikipedia's voice", but it illustrates (somewhat) how the news treated the event, which is academically valuable info in itself. The "snatched" way is certainly more concise and eliminates the judgmental word altogether. Up to you two (or whoever else). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, as a compromise, maybe something like this will work:

According to news reports "in an embarrassing twist"[1]... "before the government could even begin to celebrate such an important victory in its battle against the drug cartels, officials learned that an armed gang had invaded a funeral home and snatched the body."[2]

This probably covers most, if not all, concerns. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
But don't forget the comma before "reports". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done as above. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Casey, Nicholas (10 October 2012). "Mexico Strikes Back Against Cartel". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 10 October 2012. Retrieved 10 October 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference plataoplomo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Lazcano ordered Moreira's execution

[edit]

New reports state that Lazcano ordered the execution of José Eduardo Moreira Rodríguez, the son of Humberto Moreira. I don't want to start speculating but this might bring about new information on Lazcano's death, given that he was killed after José Eduardo. Things are starting to make sense.

http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/dc68c2b6536ace062ada849fbf31e9ee ComputerJA (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes with Morales' arrest

[edit]

I made one change but this article needs more rewriting to take into account that Lazcano's successor, Miguel Treviño Morales, has been arrested. Almost all of the section on the aftermath of Lazcano's death points to Morales taking over the cartel but that obviously will change now that he will be imprisoned. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heriberto_Lazcano_Lazcano&oldid=1256745828"