Talk:Pedro Albizu Campos

Use of names

I understand that Albizu is the paternal names, but what is the custom for using last names? In some places (and articles), he is referred to as Albizu, in others as Albizu Campos.Parkwells (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish naming custom, used in Puerto Rico, places your father's last name (your legal last name)first. This is followed by your mother's maiden name. So if you are Bob, and your father's last name is Smith, and your mother's maiden name is Jones, you would be called Bob Smith Jones. Your children would inherit the patronimic, and use as their last name your wife's (their mother's) maiden name. So you are Bob Smith Jones, and if you married a Roberts, your daughter's name would be Lucille Smith Roberts. In this case Pedro's father's last name was Albizu, and his mother's maiden name was Campos. So his complete name is Pedro Albizu Campos, his legal last name being Albizu. If he were a doctor, for example, he would be known as "Dr. Albizu Campos," or, as a shortened name, "Dr. Albizu." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.197.222 (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Assumption that a photo is "decorative"

It is not a good policy to unilaterally remove photos, from an article that has been developed by multiple and knowledgeable editors over a long period of time. In the most recent case, the photo of three key Nationalists heading for prison has important historical value.

1) Albizu Campos was the president of the Nationalist Party, and leader of the island-wide agricultural strike of 1934.

2) Corretjer was a key journalist for La Democracia, one of the most aggressive and politically challenging newspapers from 1900 till 1940.

3) Soto Velez was a prolific and influential poet, playwright and essayist. A school building is named after him here in NYC.

All three of these men are independently noteworthy. They each have articles here in Wikipedia. All three of them were convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government and incitement to riot. In Albizu's case, he would serve 25 years in prison (three separate prison terms). This photo represents one of the last moments, when these three historical figures were FREE MEN.

They were also key political leaders, during a very turbulent (and violent) time.

In the case of Albizu, the photo is also significant, because it shows his healthy physical condition before prison. He was severely mistreated in the Atlanta penitentiary - so much so, that he was paroled to a hospital in NYC for nearly a year, when he was released in 1946. This photo shows his condition of health before prison.

I think there was a flaw in the photo caption. It did not properly reflect that these men were under indictment, headed for trial, and years of imprisonment. On that basis (for an editor who doesn't know the history) the photo can be misinterpreted as a "casual" photo. That is not Damiens' fault - he just doesn't know, and that is not his fault. But Damiens, it's better if you do things a little more slowly, and ask a question or two -- then you can hear some of this interesting and important history, and we can all work and grow together.

About three months ago (scroll up to October 2013) I placed a small reading list that might be helpful to editors, with respect to Puerto Rican history. It is a small, basic list - but it can help. Here it is again:

Thomas Aitken Jr., Luis Munoz Marin: Poet in the Fortress; Signet Books, 1965

Cesar Ayala, American Sugar Kingdom; Penguin Books, 2010

Mini Seijo Bruno, The Nationalist Insurrection in Puerto Rico - 1950; Editorial Edil, 1989

Rich Cohen, The Fish That Ate the Whale: The Life and Times of America's Banana King; Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2012

Manuel Maldonado Denis, Puerto Rico: A Socio-historic Interpretation; Random House, 1972

Ronald Fernanzez, Los Macheteros; Prentice Hall Press, 1987

Juan Gonzalez, Harvest of Empire; Penguin Books, 2011

Stephen Hunter, American Gunfight; Simon & Schuster, 2005

A.W. Maldonado, Luis Munoz Marin: Puerto Rico's Democratic Revolution; Editorial Universidad de Puerto Rico, 2006

Sidney W. Mintz, Worker in the Cane; W.W. Norton & Co., 1974

Sidney W. Mintz, Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History; Penguin Books, 1985

Marisa Rosado, Pedro Albuzu Campos; Ediciones Puerto, Inc., 2005

Federico Ribes Tovar, Albizu Campos: Puerto Rican Revolutionary; Plus Ultra Books, 1971

This list is not exhaustive. Several of the above sources were cited in a number of the Puerto Rican history articles. I encourage any editor (not just you Damiens, I'm definitely not singling you out) to consult these sources before imposing major changes on articles that have been written collaboratively, by many other editors, over a period of several years.

After this posting, I'm going to provide a little more detail to the photo under discussion, and then I'm going to restore it. I hope we can all work together here. These articles are important to us (the editors who've built them). We don't always have to go to ANI or noticeboards -- we can learn and appreciate the underlying humanity of the articles, that we work so hard to build ! Nelsondenis248 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Those men were important, and the photo was taken in a very important moment of their life and of the history of their country. Still, the seeing the photo does not add to the reader understanding of the topic. And we don't use non-free material in those cases.

If you still disagree with that, would you open a debate at Wikipedia:Non-free content review for listening the opinion of non-free police knowledgeable editors? --damiens.rf 18:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Damiens, I disagree that the photo does not add to reader understanding. I just provided you with several paragraphs of detailed information (please see above)as to precisely why and how this photo adds to reader understanding. Please consider this information. You have all the tools, right in front of you, to make a reasonable judgment about this photo. I also provided you a reading list to help you understand the subject matter of this and other comparable articles. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nelson, I think what Damiens is saying is that the Wikipedia CR "police" procedure is to remove non-free images (except for where they directly impact the subject matter of the article - say you can use an non-free photo of Pedro Albizu Campos only in the PAC article). So even if a non-free photo does add to the reader's understanding of the subject, becuase it is non-free it cannot be used if it has already been used elsewhere where it adds to the readers understanding more promiently yet. Do I have it right Damines? Mercy11 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

More less, but very close. WP:NFCC#8 states that non-free images are used only when they "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic".

Nelsondenis248, you may be right in correcting me when I said the photo "does not add to reader understanding". I should have put it more clearly, and explain that the image should add significantly to the understanding, in a way that free content (other photos or even simply text) could not do.

I see you arguing about the importance of the people depicted, and of the moment the photo was taken. But I don't see an argument about how, witouth this photo, one could fail to complete understand those important subjects.

I suggest we agree to disagree and raise the question at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Would you do that? --damiens.rf 13:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Implicit in your statement is a standard that does not apply here. The "but for" standard (frequently used in tort law) asserts that "but for" some element, a subsequent event would have, or would have not, occurred. The "but for" standard does not apply to photo usage in Wikipedia, otherwise the overwhelming majority of photos would have to be eliminated immediately. If a photo illustrates, supports, or lends context to accompanying subject matter, then the photo has a qualifying role in a given article. It is on this basis that (again) the overwhelming majority of photos are included in this Wikipedia. As to your last question Damiens (which you asked before) I have already answered it. Please read my immediately preceding statement. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I confess I fail to see your argument. I'll nominate the image for deletion, so that a broader forum could weight on its usage in the light of our polices. Please, join in. (I was considering non-free content review because I believed the image was being used in some other article for a different purpose. My bad.) --damiens.rf 19:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment. With all respect Damiens, but your failure to see another editor's argument is not a reason to nominate an image for deletion. That would be a reason to ask questions. Perhaps you just weren't patient with Nelson? Or perhaps you did not ask the right questions? Or perhaps you failed to take advantage that I was here and attempting to "translate" between you two? Your submission to FfD on this basis just doesn't seem to add up. Perhaps I am missing something. Mercy11 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A Nomination for deletion is one way to take the discussion to more people. One should not see that as an offence. Just like tagging an article or sentence is not an offense either. In a collective work like Wikipedia, discussion is always welcome. --damiens.rf 20:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

In the "Legacy" section of this article, an editor recently imported a quotation stating that "His critics say that he failed to attract and offer concrete solutions to the struggling poor and working class people and thus was unable to spread the revolution to the masses." This quote was lifted from an article that was overwhelmingly dedicated to documenting Albizu Campos's dedication, struggle, and effective contribution to the political development and cultural awareness of his countrymen and women. This quote was thus lifted out of context for editorial "balance," but given the 99.9% opposite view of the article from which it was lifted, it seems more like an editorial POV.

It is also factually inept...logic and common sense will indicate that being imprisoned for 25 years - i.e. the majority of one's adult life - and then followed by the FBI all over the island, has a lot more to do with one's inability to lead people, than an alleged personal failure to connect with the masses. Sarason (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm… Recently I made an edit to this article’s “Legacy” section in an attempt to add some balance. The section as I found it starts out in a fairly even manner with a mention that Albizu Campos’ legacy is the “subject of discussion among supporters and detractors.” This is followed by four sentences, none of which are sourced, and all of which are extremely positive in their portrayal of Albizu Campos. To balance this out a bit I added a single sentence, properly sourced and directly quoted, which gives the position of his detractors. This edit was deleted with the comment above providing some rather interesting rationale.

The first rationale given is that, well, the source that I cited is, essentially, “99.9%” pro-Albizu Campos and the quote “was thus lifted out of context for editorial ‘balance,’ but… seems more like an editorial POV.” This is incorrect for two reasons; 1) There is no stipulation anywhere in the Mighty Wik that states that a source must contain a minimum pro- or anti- position on a subject for all points in that same source to eligible to be included in an article here, and 2) If the author of this “99.9%” pro-Albizu Campos source felt that this criticism was important enough to include in his article, well…

The second rationale provided is that the criticism is “factually inept...logic and common sense will indicate that…” Logic and common sense. I would offer that this complaint is merely the above editor’s personal opinion on the viability of the criticism and that the rejection thereof rather borders on WP:OR.

I have restored the detractors' view which I firmly believe is supported by WP:Balance. As for the rest of the article, I find that quite a bit of it is presented in an uneven fashion. I look forward to working with all of you in the coming months to help put this article on a more even keel. Hammersbach (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have, again, restored the criticism to the Legacy section of the article which I feel adds necessary balance. Again, the comment is relevant and properly sourced. I find the edit summary where a deleting editor wrote that the comment is “…outside the historical context” to be absolutely eye opening. Hammersbach (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hammersbach, I see what you are trying to do, and your objective is perfectly legitimate. The cite you are using, however, is dubious. Trustworthy sources use photo captions to highlight facts already presented in the body of the article. Reliable sources would use photo captions as snapshot summaries and not -as this source is doing- to introduce new ideas or facts. The source is stating that PAC's critics say that he "failed to attract and offer concrete solutions to the struggling poor and working class people and thus was unable to spread the revolution to the masses" but does so without first making the case for it elsewhere. In addition, the source states "critics say..." but fails to mention a single "critic" by name. Furthermore, it also fails to source the claim made in that caption (so that interested readers can research the origin of the claim further). In short, this source falls into what Wikipedia calls a questionable source. I removed the cite, but would encourage you to find and add a reliable source that presents that "concrete solutions... masses" claim. Certainly, since PAC has been meticulously studied by large number of authors, if the claim made is true, then we should find it documented elsewhere by the actual "critic" herself, don't you think?

Even the best politician has room for improvement, so I am sure you can find some trait where PAC didn't shine. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, dang and golly gee whiz... Mercy11, why don't you, for once, actually read the policy you are citing before you remove material that you find objectionable? As I read it, WP:Questionable refers to whether or not the source is acceptable, not the factoid within the source. Also, since you are whining about the quality of the source of the, perhaps, perceivably unfavorable comment, could you please explain why you see no need, what-so-ever, to address the fact that absolutely none of the pro-Albizu legacy comments are sourced at all? You see, the concern I have is that the three of you, Sarason, Jmundo and yourself, are aggressively working to prevent a sourced comment that does not perhaps positively reflect on PAC from being entered into the article while at the same time none of you see apparently anything wrong with allowing decidedly positive, and completely unsourced, comments to stand. How am I to accept and believe that what you three are doing is in keeping with WP:NPOV? The truth is, I can't. Hammersbach (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hammersbach, it is not enough for a comment to be sourced, according to Wikipedia WP:V it has to come from a secondary, reliable and not-questionable source. Did you read my comment above in its entirety? I am all for negative comments about PAC but if the one you found is one, where are the other secondary, reliable, and non-questionable sources that support it? This is an issue here because in this particular case the source is not stating that PAC failed to blah blah blah but that critics say that PAC failed to blah blah blah. To satisfy your curiosity, yes, I am also all for sourced cites of comments that show a positive legacy comment of PAC. But, with all respect to you, instead of wasting time whining about it here, why don't you just place inline {{cn}} tags on those pro-Albizu legacy comments that you find objectionable? Common sense should tell you that if I haven't tagged them it is because I find them consistent with what I have read from other sources in the past, and so no cite is needed. And yes, you are right that Jmundo, Sarason and myself are objecting to your edit - but have you stopped to consider that perhaps it is because you are doing something that three different editors who are not new to this biography find your edit unsupported by Wikipedia policy? It is up to you to resolve it here, or, you can be dramatic and get pushed thru the other processes that Wikipedia allows for editors that insists in their own POV. I suggest you relax a bit and use some WP:COMMONSENSE. Mercy11 (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You’ll forgive me, but as I read the above reply I find that it is not so much about common sense, but rather that it is nonsensical. What I am being asked to accept is that it is legitimate for some editors to allow unsourced information into the article merely because they believe it is consistent with other sources that they have read, and therefore requires no citations, while at the same time delete sourced information that I have added which they deem unacceptable since I do not have additional “secondary, reliable, and non-questionable sources that support it”. What makes this all the more interesting is that I am the one being accused of contravening WP:V. Wow…

The source for my edit is the NY Latino Journal so therefore the question is: Is the NY Latino Journal a reliable source? Currently, the NY Latino Journal is being used as a reliable source in nine articles dealing with Puerto Rico here on the Mighty Wik. Since all of these articles have been edited by one or more of the three other editors and none have objected previously to this source, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that their objection to NY Latino Journal as a reliable source in this article is oddly newfound and very pointed.

And as for my being dramatic and getting pushed through other processes, well, I’ll leave up to those editors who have experience in such matters, [1] experience that leaves me quite relaxed. Hammersbach (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

For several reasons, this does not appear to be an effective use of secondary sources.

• the quote refers to numerous unspecified "critics," but does not say who those critics are, where their criticism was expressed, where and when this criticism was published (if at all), or what were the factual underpinnings of this "criticism."
• there is no publication history, no identifier, no data trail for anyone to follow
• the entirety of this article in NY Latino Journal documents the exact opposite of the quoted material: it demonstrates a thoroughly engaged man (Albizu Campos) who mobilized the conscience and energy of the entire island
• Albizu Campos and the Nationalists developed and articulated a highly specific and far-ranging set of "practical solutions for the working classes." This included land reform, a revised tariff structure, expansion of the human rights provisions that were eliminated in the 1917 Jones-Shafroth Act, an end to 1920 Jones Act maritime cabotage (the '20 Jones Act and '17 Jones-Shafroth Act were two entirely different pieces of legislation), annulment of the Hollander Bill property tax levies, nationalization of banks, Spanish-language public school instruction, and adherence to the Carta de Autonomia provisions (the Autonomic Charter) that Spanish Prime Minister Segasta had extended to Puerto Rico in 1897. Most of these specific provisions are covered extensively in La Conciencia Puertorriquena, Manuel Maldonado-Denis, ed.
• It was precisely because of the clarity, specificity, and relevance of this program to the working classes, that the working classes turned to Albizu in 1934 and asked him to lead the '34 island-wide agricultural strike. It was precisely because of the success of this strike, and the wage-and-labor concessions that it generated for the working classes, that Albizu Campos was ultimately jailed.
• Albizu Campos spent 25 years - most of his adult life - in prison. When released from prison, he was surrounded 24 hours per day, by continuous shifts of FBI agents that followed him all over the island and interrogated anyone who spoke to him. They passed a Gag Law (Public Law 53) within months of his release from prison, that empowered those FBI agents to arrest and imprison just about anyone who spoke to Albizu Campos. THESE are the reasons why Albizu Campos was "isolated" from the larger population.

In view of 1) the inadequacy of the sourcing as to who these "critics" are, and what they actually said; 2) the highly detailed program which Albizu and the Nationalists did develop and advocate; and 3) the 25-year imprisonment, 24-hour FBI surveillance, and Gag Law repression throughout the island of Puerto Rico, the quoted material is manifestly broad, imprecise, inaccurate, and poorly documented. Accordingly I reverted it. Sarason (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The reply above does not address the central question, does it? So let me repeat it, the source for my edit is the NY Latino Journal so therefore the question is: Is the NY Latino Journal a reliable source? If the answer is no then the issue is settled (and consequently we have multiple articles that are using it inappropriately as a source that will require attention). If the answer is yes then the issue becomes whether or not the information is being presented properly in accordance with the various WPs. Hammersbach (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Your central question is invalid. The proper uses of a source are not invalidated by a willfully improper use of that same source. Using your flawed logic -- if someone uses a 20 dollar bill to buy illegal drugs, then any use of that same 20 dollar bill is also a criminal act: including doing your laundry, buying your mother some flowers, and donating $20 to the homeless. I'm sorry, Hammer. You are attempting to cherry-pick your issues, and no one is buying it.

BTW Hammer, you failed to address the entirety of a well-researched and well-documented response, that was just provided to you.

I invite you to conduct some basic research in this area. Below is a short but reasonably comprehensive list. I can provide you more titles if you'd like. I've been studying this area for a long time, and continue to find it fascinating.

• Thomas Aitken Jr., Luis Munoz Marin: Poet in the Fortress; Signet Books, 1965
• Cesar Ayala, American Sugar Kingdom; Penguin Books, 2010
• Cesar Ayala & Rafael Bernabe, Puerto Rico in the American Century: A History since 1898; University of North Carolina Press, 1997
• Mini Seijo Bruno, The Nationalist Insurrection in Puerto Rico - 1950; Editorial Edil, 1989
• Rich Cohen, The Fish That Ate the Whale: The Life and Times of America's Banana King; Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2012
• Nelson Denis, "The Curious Constitution of Puerto Rico," Harvard Political Review, Winter 1977
• Manuel Maldonado-Denis, Puerto Rico: A Socio-historic Interpretation; Random House, 1972
• James L. Dietz, Economic History of Puerto Rico; Princeton University Press, 1986
• Baily W. Diffie and Justin Whitfield Diffie, The Broken Pledge; The Vanguard Press, 1931
• Ronald Fernandez, Los Macheteros; Prentice Hall Press, 1987
• Ronald Fernandez, The Disenchanted Island: Puerto Rico and the U.S. in the 20th Century; Praeger Publishers, 1996
• Eduardo Galeano, Open Veins of Latin America; Monthly Review Press, 1973
• Juan Gonzalez, Harvest of Empire; Penguin Books, 2011
• Stephen Hunter, American Gunfight; Simon & Schuster, 2005
• A.W. Maldonado, Luis Munoz Marin: Puerto Rico's Democratic Revolution; Editorial Universidad de Puerto Rico, 2006
• Sidney W. Mintz, Worker in the Cane; W.W. Norton & Co., 1974
• Sidney W. Mintz, Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History; Penguin Books, 1985
• Jose Trias Monge, Puerto Rico: The Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World; Yale University Press, 1997
• Marisa Rosado, Pedro Albuzu Campos; Ediciones Puerto, Inc., 2005
• Federico Ribes Tovar, Albizu Campos: Puerto Rican Revolutionary; Plus Ultra Books, 1971

Please feel free to ask me any questions regarding these books. I'll be glad to answer them. Sarason (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As I read the reply above I think perhaps I wasn't making myself as clear as I should have. Using the money analogy, I am asking whether or not the $20 bill is real or counterfeit. If it's counterfeit, then we can't use it to do our laundry, buy our mother some flowers, donate $20 to the homeless, or even score some bitchin' ganja.

So... the allegation is that my use of the article in the NY Latino Journal as a reliable source is “willfully improper”. I am curious to know which policy you believe I am breaking. To date I have been called out for violating WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:Verifiability. Both of these policies deal with whether or not information within an article on the Mighty Wik can be traced back to a reliable source, which in this case would be whether or not the NY Latino Journal is a reliable source. Based on the way the reply above is phrased I am going to infer that the editor accepts the NY Latino Journal is a reliable source, so these two policies aren't the issue. It has also been alleged that the edit I am trying to make violates WP:BALASPS. This however is a misapplication as that policy deals with giving appropriate weight and balance to various aspects of the subject so that you don’t, for example, end up with an entire section on the fact that PAC didn’t brush his teeth before he went to bed at night. So again, which specific policy am I violating that makes my edit “willfully improper”?

As to your response that I “failed” to address "a well-researched and well-documented response":

1) As to the "inadequacy" of sourcing, the information that there are critics who believe that PAC failed to win over the masses is attributable to NY Latino Journal. If that source is reliable then the quote about the critics is reliable.

• The proper uses of a source are not invalidated by a willfully improper use of that same source. Using your flawed logic -- if someone uses a 20 dollar bill to buy illegal drugs, then any use of that same 20 dollar bill is also a criminal act: including doing your laundry, buying your mother some flowers, and donating $20 to the homeless. I'm sorry, Hammer. You are attempting to cherry-pick your issues, and no one is buying it.

2) The fact is the “highly detailed program which Albizu and the Nationalists did develop and advocate” failed to win over the masses. This is shown by the drubbing that Albizu and the Nationalists repeatedly experienced at the polls. The best results that I have able to find for them is when they won 2.6% of the vote in 1932. It is further evidenced by the support Albizu received when he ordered the uprisings in 1950 and a grand total of 4.8e-5% of the population rushed to his side, a percentage so small that it is best written in scientific notation.

• As of 1930 the FBI and Insular Police were keeping police dossiers (carpetas) on all avowed Nationalists, and anyone suspected of sympathizing with Nationalists. These carpetas were used to deny people employment, fire them if they were employed, ruin their credit, and numerous other reprisals. From 1948 until 1957, pursuant to Public Law 53 (aka Gag Law 53, aka La Ley de la Mordaza) being a Nationalist or supporting, advocating or voting for Nationalism or independence were all grounds for imprisonment for up to 20 years. Sarason (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

3) Albizu’s 25 years in jail and the surveillance he suffered absolutely were instrumental in his failure to win over the masses. But this was the result of his poorly thought out strategy to achieve Puerto Rican independence through violent means, means that failed to generate any significant popular support.

• His initial jail sentence was the product of a rigged jury. See James L. Dietz, Economic History of Puerto Rico; Princeton University Press, 1986; Manuel Maldonado-Denis, Puerto Rico: A Socio-historic Interpretation; Random House, 1972; Ronald Fernandez, Los Macheteros; Prentice Hall Press, 1987; Federico Ribes Tovar, Albizu Campos: Puerto Rican Revolutionary; Plus Ultra Books, 1971; Marisa Rosado, Pedro Albuzu Campos; Ediciones Puerto, Inc., 2005. Sarason (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• The reason for his "jury trial" in 1936 was his successful leadership of the island-wide agricultural strike of 1934. See Mini Seijo Bruno, The Nationalist Insurrection in Puerto Rico - 1950; Editorial Edil, 1989; Juan Gonzalez, Harvest of Empire; Penguin Books, 2011; and all of the books cited in the bullet point above. Sarason (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

With respect to the reading list that you added (for the third time) on this talk page, did you use all of them in your "well-researched and well-documented response"? Just wondering as you only cited one (not that cites are ever required on talk pages)... Hammersbach (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please review point #3 above. When you read the books I just cited for you therein, Hammer (as I'm sure you will), you will see that they all specifically concur with the points that I elaborated for you. Sarason (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Which specific Wikipedia policy am I violating that makes my edit “willfully improper”? Hammersbach (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You are citing multiple "critics" without providing additional detail (which critics? how many? in which publications? on what factual basis?). Before you pirouette into an "Aha!" moment and try to play "gotcha!" Ham, please note that your willful and persistent attempt to inject a vaguely worded photo caption (that is where it appears in NY Latino Journal: as a caption underneath a photo) does not get rewarded with the invalidation of NY Latino Journal as a legitimate source.

Please note that when a Wikipedia article is inadequately sourced at a particular point, then that point is either sourced or removed --but the entire article is not deleted, because of that one source deficiency. The same holds for the NY Latino Journal. Perhaps you're familiar with the legal term "laches." It means that a party does not receive the benefit of their own wrongdoing. Ham, you are not going to WP:Wikilawyer the NY Latino Journal into a corner, because of your insistence on turning a vague photo caption into a fundamental statement. Sarason (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The source is good and the previously made accusations that this violates policy are false. I will continue to make this edit that is properly sourced, does not violate any policy, and brings some much needed balance to this article. Hammersbach (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• You have already been told at great lengths by numerous editors that the source is inadequate. If you cannot find find additional sources for the same claim, we simply do not depend on one lonely source by one unknown author. Period. Do not revert the back to you preferred version. again. Mercy11 (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What I have been "told at great lengths by numerous editors" doesn't hold water. This is simply a case of WP:IJDLI on your part. I repeat, the source is good and the previously made accusations that this violates policy are false. I will continue to make this edit as it is properly sourced, does not violate any policy, and brings some much needed balance to this article.Hammersbach (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Negative. And you are a long-time editor; you are expected to know better than to ignore the reverts from multiple editors on the same thing. By know you would know you are expected to build WP:CONSENSUS, take it to WP:DISPUTE or let it go. I wished a could support you at least a little bit somehow, but I cannot see where or how. I have been supportive of many or your edits since we bumped into each other some weeks/months back, but this one I cannot support. I am not going to say, consider this a warning, because so many editors here see that as confrontation and a threat, but it really is a warning. I don't see how else I can tell you that you have failed to win editors to your side on this one. If you are of the opinion that you can "[bring] some much needed balance to this article", you should be able to find other authors saying what you want. If you cant find it, have you consider that perhaps your needed balance theory is only in your own mind alone? Mercy11 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, despite the severe finger wagging that I am receiving, I am very comfortable with the fact that I am standing on firm ground on this one. And, per the recommendation above, I even added another author's comment (properly sourced, of course). Anyway, as I wrote in my first comment in this section, I find that quite a bit of this article is presented in an uneven fashion. I look forward to working with all of you in the coming months to help put this article on a more even keel. Sláinte! Hammersbach (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

There has been a lot of chatter about this issue so far but no clear direction other than objection to the use of the statement "His critics say that he "failed to attract ..." when there is no factual verification who its author is so we can judge his authority as a reliable source. As such, I would like to ask for a show of hands and corresponding conclusion/supporting comments on this one objection: Should the statement "His critics say that he 'failed to attract and offer concrete solutions to the struggling poor and working class people and thus was unable to spread the revolution to the masses' and credited to Juan Antonio Ocasio Rivera in the NY LATINO JOURNAL, be kept or deleted? (note the question is not about whether or not the statement is true, but whther it can be kept in teh context of coming from JAOR as a reliable source). Please sign your name under the appropriate choice below:

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Remove it

• Remove it. No reliable source (author) nor attributable. We can't use generic attributions becuase I cannot confirm the claim. No citation trail to research further. We don't do WP:Balance using sources that fail WP:RS. Mercy11 (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• 
  
• 
  

Thank you for participating (If anyone has another process than this Consensus process feel free to share it!). Mercy11 (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

A new editor (or at least a new account) named TheMakerGuy has asserted an unusual point.

As we all know: Pedro Albizu Campos was the president of the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico, the first Puerto Rican to graduate from Harvard and from Harvard Law School, and imprisoned for 25 years for promoting the independence of Puerto Rico. His nationality was listed as Puerto Rican in hundreds of FBI files, some of which are cited in this article. Hundreds more articles, books, monographs and doctoral dissertations state that Albizu Campos was Puerto Rican.

However, TheMakerGuy does not feel that Albizu Campos' nationality was Puerto Rican. He bases this on two subjective points:

1. according to the 2010 U.S. Census, 75.8% of Puerto Rico is White

2. Puerto Rico is a commonwealth and, according to TheMakerGuy, has not been a nation since 1492

I pointed out to TheMakerGuy that the Wiki article Nationality states that, in several areas of the world, the term "nationality" can be based on ethnicity. TheMakerGuy ignored this and reverted me, because "75.8% of Puerto Rico is White."

I'm taking the time to respond in a calm and deliberate manner, because I don't think TheMakerGuy intended this as a racist insult. However TheMakerGuy, please understand that when you equate being "White" with being "American," you are making a deeply offensive statement.

TheMakerGuy, you are also mistakenly conflating ethnicity with race. Those are two different things.

With respect to Puerto Rican nationality - the insular racial composition (White, Black, Taino/Arawak) has no bearing whatsoever on the nationality issue. The political designation ("Commonwealth") is also not dispositive. The Irish people did not stop being Irish, and Indians did not stop being Indian, despite centuries of British domination. The Vietnamese did not stop being Vietnamese during the occupation of French Indochina.

Pedro Albizu Campos was Puerto Rican. His nationality is Puerto Rican. Don't take my word for it: read his birth certificate. Read the hundreds of FBI Files available at the Centro de Estudio Puertorriqueños (119th Street and 3rd Avenue) in NYC. Read the hundreds of articles, books, monographs and doctoral dissertations which state that Albizu Campos was Puerto Rican. Read his own book La Conciencia Nacional Puertorriqueña, (Cerro del Agua, Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, S.A., 1977). Read his wife's autobiography: Albizu Campos y la Independencia de Puerto Rico, by Laura Albizu Campos Meneses (Puerto Rico: Publicaciones Puertorriqueñas, Inc., 2007). Read his New York Times obituary from April 1965. You can also read any/all of the following:

• Marisa Rosado, Pedro Albuzu Campos; Ediciones Puerto, Inc., 2005
• Federico Ribes Tovar, Albizu Campos: Puerto Rican Revolutionary; Plus Ultra Books, 1971
• Miñi Seijo Bruno, The Nationalist Insurrection in Puerto Rico - 1950; Editorial Edil, 1989
• Manuel Maldonado-Denis, Puerto Rico: A Socio-historic Interpretation; Random House, 1972

Sarason (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's not loose sight of a crucial point. Albizu Campos was NOT jailed because he espoused independence for Puerto Rico. He was jailed because he espoused armed, violent insurrection against the government. The nationalists felt that the solution to the independence issue lay in guns, bombs, murder, and violent overthrow of the insular government. Many other people, including the PIP, argued forcefully for Puerto Rican independence, but argued for a LEGAL process through the election of a legislature and governor who could then pressure the American Congress to take up the matter. That's how PR gained autonomy from Spain, and that is the hope even now. Albizu Campos was, I hate to say, a terrorist, despite his breathtaking intelligence and talents; his radicalism robbed Puerto Rico of the benefits of those talents.

• Grofaz changed the nationality and sent me an email about it. I think that per Puerto Rican citizenship and nationality it should be considered a nationality to be Puerto Rican. Andre🚐 19:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you Andrevan, so I am reverting the article to your version which I believe had consensus due, partly, to the amount of years the article read with the Puerto Rican nationality entry. So, I am agreeing not only with you but also with the hundreds of editors who edited this articles in its 20 years existing and have -directly or tacitly- agreed with the nationality the way it read before. Also, I see that Grofaz might be a beginning editor; he may need to be made aware that major changes like the one he made should first be discussed in this articles' page (here) and he would need to gain consensus for his change prior to the change being made because, again, this is a significant departure from the article's historical editorial record. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Founded the Knights of Columbus? I don't think so!

The lead paragraph incredibly gives Albizu Campos credit for founding the Knights of Columbus. However, the Wiki article on the K of C gives the founding date as 1882, nine years before he was born. That the K of C was active before he was born is easily verified, as in this volume: Acts of the Connecticut Legislature, 1889 (see page 927), containing amendments to the K of C charter from two years before he was born. The tale that he founded the Knights of Columbus is only slightly more believable than an assertion that he sailed with Columbus in the first place. Plazak (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the sentence means he founded the Knights of Columbus at Harvard, not the entire organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.75.121 (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur, it's a simple correction. Hammersbach (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that is important enough to put in the lead paragraph? I think it's barely worth noting down in the body of the article. Plazak (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that it's not notable enough to place in the lead. Hammersbach (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)