Talk:Pedro Albizu Campos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Afro-Puerto Rican[edit]

I edited a previous edited that asserted that he was "Afro-Taino and Basque." This claim about Albizu Campos' ancestry was inserted by an anonymous user. It was not cited and is not verifiable, and he is most generally referred to as an Afro-Puerto Rican. It is important to note that although an Afro-Puerto Rican may have a Basque surname like Albizu, this in no way means that he is Basque, and could reflect, as in the majority of the African diaspora, a "slave name."--Noopinonada (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Pedro's Racial Ancestry[edit]

I noticed that there is no reference to Don Pedro's Taíno and Basque ancestry. I am not sure who originally posted it in the article, but they obviously did not quote a source. However, I have a source speaking about this. It is in a book called Albizu Campos Puerto Rican Revolutionary, by Federico Ribes Tovar. On page 17 it specifically refers to his parents and their ancestry. His father, Alejandro Albizu Romero, known as "El Vizcaíno”, was a Basque merchant living in Ponce. His mother, Julia Campos is described as being of Spanish, Indian (Taíno) and African descent. I am new to the whole editing on Wikipedia, so I am just posting this on the talk page. I hope that this information will be helpful.--Iraorabo (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dispute[edit]

How Come all Nationalist Member Articles are being written from a Pro-Statehood Party point of view? (Spacestoned (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

Response: Probably because of the constant smear campaign of the pro-statehood parties of changing what the new generations perceive as history.
-P. Rivera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.244.153 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that, as well. This article has some clear tone issues: "Apparently the investigators found some ambiguity in the words 'extermination, killing off eight,' and 'transplanting cancer into several more.'" Not that I necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but I am not sure if the main WikiP article is the right forum for this type of conjecture as to what is apparent.Sandschie (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Sandschie
I'm sure that it is not.Parkwells (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Free Mason as a religion???[edit]

Freemasonry is most definitely *NOT* a religion. If anything, it's a fraternity. Don Pedro was given a scholarship to study by the Aurora Lodge of Ponce, Puerto Rico, but he was NOT a freemason. It's widely known that Albizu was part of the Knights of Colombus, that have always been the Roman Catholic Church's response to and eternal rivals of the freemasons. This should be changed, pending verification by a trusted source, like Miñi Seijo's book.

--Changed I changed the religion to Roman Catholic. This can be confirmed by any biographical source regarding Don Pedro. Besides, Freemasonry is not a religion, it's a fraternal organization. Don Pedro was never a member of the Aurora Lodge #7 of Ponce.

P. Rivera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.46.131 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Vazquez source not reliable[edit]

Pages such as this one are self-published conjecture and are not reliable. Andrevan@ 05:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree; delete.Parkwells (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Article is unbalanced[edit]

Too much detailed history of Puerto Rico is given for a biography of an individual. More than a quarter century of history (and two sections of the article) does not need coverage before noting Abizu's own participation in the Nationalist Party. Sources have to be better used. Claims are made about his being medically mistreated in prison without saying why and when he was in prison. It is likely also that there are other accounts of this, which need to be included. It is undue weight to give so much space to his accusations against Rhoads. Yes, his comments were reprehensible, but have no basis in fact, as shown by more than one investigation.Parkwells (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of names[edit]

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)

Unbalanced/stick to topic[edit]

Given that this is about Albizu Campos, I think there is too much content about US land grab in other nations. Specifically, I think the following is excess content here:

"Major US companies bought up and otherwise gained control of major portions of land throughout the Caribbean nations during the next decades. In 1912 the Cayumel Banana company, a U.S. corporation, orchestrated the military invasion of Honduras in order to obtain hundreds of thousands of acres of Honduran land. It arranged for tax-free export of its entire banana crop.[1]

By 1928 the United Fruit Company, another U.S. corporation, owned over 200,000 acres of prime Colombian farmland, much devoted to cultivating bananas. When a labor strike erupted against the company in December 6 of that year, company enforcers killed more than 1,000 men, women and children in suppressing the strike. This was known as the Banana Massacre. By 1930 the United Fruit Company owned over one million acres of land in Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Mexico and Cuba.[1] By 1940, in Honduras alone, the United Fruit Company owned 50 percent of all private land in the entire country.[1]

By 1942, the United Fruit Company owned 75 percent of all private land in Guatemala - plus most of Guatemala's roads, power stations and phone lines, the only Pacific seaport, and every mile of railroad.[2]

The U.S. government supported these economic exploits. The U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt declared, “It is manifest destiny for a nation to own the islands which border its shores.”[3] He said, if “any South American country misbehaves it should be spanked.”[4]"

I agree that it is provocative, but it belongs better in histories of the countries and region, not this man's biography. It is not directly relevant to events in his life.Parkwells (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Rich Cohen; The Fish That Ate the Whale; New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2012; pp. 14-67 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "autogenerated3" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Rich Cohen; The Fish That Ate the Whale; pub. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2012; p. 174
  3. ^ Perkins, Dexter (1937), The Monroe Doctrine, 1867-1907, Baltimore Press; p. 333
  4. ^ Roosevelt, Theodore (1913), Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography, The Macmillion Press Company; p. 172

This is hagiography, not biography[edit]

This article is unbalanced, and biased in favor of Don Pedro. His authoritarian streak, his adoption of Fascist symbols, and his correspondence with Francisco Franco were left out. Luis Angel Ferrao's book "Pedro Albizu Campos y el nacionalismo puertorriqueño" should be consulted as a source for these less-than-complementary view of Don Pedro. Furthermore, crediting Don Pedro with "the formal adoption of the Puerto Rican flag as a national emblem by the Puerto Rican government" is an oversimplification. There's more to Don Pedro's use of Puerto Rican national symbols as a source. The author must consult the debate transcripts of Puerto Rico's Constitutional Convention to explore the framers' true mind on the subject. Similarly, crediting Don Pedro with "the improvement of labor conditions for peasants and workers" is another oversimplification, which leaves out the activities of Don Santiago Iglesias Pantín (who was an early Socialist, but not a Nationalist) unmentioned. To end, this article about Don Pedro Albizu Campos needs extensive rewriting in order to restore in it a sense of sober balance.Teófilo de Jesús (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is BIOGRAPHY[edit]

Actually, this article is quite balanced. Rather than employing just one book or one source as the previous editor suggests, the many editors who contributed to this article over the past five years have consulted all of the following books, and cited many of them, in this and other articles concerning Puerto Rican history:

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

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Massive editing[edit]

Within the space of two hours, an editor has 1) added 1,158 bytes of text, 2) deleted 821 bytes of text, 3) deleted sourced material, 4) deleted citations, and 5) done all of this, with no accompanying entry on this talk page.

I restored a small portion of this text, restored some citations, and provided a few more. I suggest greater caution and collaboration going forward.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you and other editors here are all working on the Rhoads article, I thought it was sufficient to say there that I was moving Campos' long quote in his accusations of Rhoads to here, and adding material on the Puerto Rican investigation, and forgot to copy it here. None of you have responded to my comments about including cited content from the NY TImes, except Mercy11, to say I was "hung up" on nationality. Since both an American and a Puerto Rican investigation were done in 1932, I think it is pertinent to point that out - especially as readers might not realize top-ranked Puerto Ricans were involved in this, and since it was more thorough, covering more cases than the Rockefeller Institute one.Parkwells (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Exportation of edit warring onto this page[edit]

In response to the notice about Massive editing, User:Parkwells has now imported his edit warring from another page onto this page. He imported yet another 1,440 bytes of controversial material from the Cornelius P. Rhoads page onto this page. This material is currently undergoing heavy editing (and reversions, and edit warring) due to User:Parkwells continued unilateral actions (adding and removing massive amounts of sourced material) without discussing it on any talk pages, until after the damage is done.

We strongly advise, User:Parkwells, against your exporting material which is being heavily edited (and reverted, and edit warred) on other pages, until reasonable consensus has been established.

The content in this article has been restored. Please do not engage in further massive reversions, and importation of controversial material from the Cornelius P. Rhoads article, until reasonable consensus has been reached on that article. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did not export "edit warring". I added Albizu Campos' lengthy 1932 quote, which someone else had already put on the Rhoads page. It did not seem to be controversial material, as I did not see discussion about it there. I addressed the move on the Talk page and no one commented on my moving it to this page, except Andrevan's agreement. It relates more to Campos' nationalist campaign, than to Rhoads' bio. Other editors had first introduced here the topic of Campos' accusations against Rhoads, and by extension and his explicit verbiage, against the US. It is reasonable to note, via an RS, who in Puerto Rico investigated those charges: the Puerto Rican AG and Puerto Rican doctors representing the national medical association and Commissioner of Health - and what their conclusion is. If you tell the beginning - Campos' accusations - you need to tell the rest.Parkwells (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
No one has addressed this issue, except Mercy11 saying I'm "hung up on nationality". That does not tell me why a reader may not want to know about the Puerto Rican government's response. At a time when the acting governor was native American, and there was at least in some quarters anti-American feeling, isn't it useful to note Puerto Rican nationals' participation in lead roles in the investigation? No one has really responded to this. Mercy11 didn't like it, but that's not an explanation in this case.Parkwells (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Everyone please continue to make your edits and when they encounter resistance, let's discuss as we are. There is no reason to cry "edit war" when in fact we appear to be having a meaningful discussion about a variety of productive changes. Andrevan@ 16:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

This page has been protected due to the edit war. Please, discuss the issues involved here and reach an agreement. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that, willingly or not, someone is pitting Rhoads against Albizu Campos. Let me explain: Unless I have missed something of planetary proportions, the details of Rhoads character questioning belongs in Rhoads article, not here. Perhaps the section titled "Accusation against Dr. Cornelius P. Rhoads" should be moved to the Cornelius P. Rhoads article. If we want to leave a few statements to the effect in this article, fine, but an entire section is perhaphs unwarranted. When we look at the TOC of a bio article it should give a general idea of the life of the subject. I don't see that a significant part of Campos's life was dedicated to the Rhoads controversy. As I have researched it, the Rhoads controversy was just one part of Campos' political struggle against the US domination in Puerto Rico. The main issue is US domination, not the cancer cells themselves. I do find it interesting and curious, and hardly purely coincidential, that decades later Campos was taken for treatment of radiation-induced ailments to the same hospital where Rhoads worked conducting his cancer and radiation (nuclear medicine) experiments and which Campos had previously denounced. Mercy11 (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It's unclear which hospital you are referring to, so a source would be useful. The article says that in Puerto Rico near the end of his life, he was treated at San Juan Hospital, with a cite. It says that earlier in the US, he had been treated at Columbus Hospital. Do you have other sourced data? Parkwells (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Rhoads worked at Presbyterian Hospital and Memorial Hospital, I don't know if San Juan Hospital is the same one. Andrevan@ 22:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a note here that cites Stephen Hunter and John Bainbridge, Jr., American Gunfight: The Plot To Kill Harry Truman - And The Shoot-Out That Stopped It, saying that indeed Albizu went to the same Presbyterian Hospital in 1956, but Rhoads would have been in NY/CT. Andrevan@ 17:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the edit war? I don't see anything too bad. Andrevan@ 17:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I see it, but I don't think it merits protection. The Rhoads issue was definitely a turning point in Albizu's career and I think it should be covered. Andrevan@ 17:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a "temp" protection with the intentions of adverting what seems to be headed towards a full blown edit war. The idea is to bring the involved parties together in this talk page to resolve the issues before this happens. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The complaint by Parkwells is not whether it is covered or not, but how much of it to cover. At least that's I what I understand from his "balance" expose in the Cornelius P. Rhoads Talk page. He's been unhappy for years; he keeps coming back every few months to these articles to make significant changes; and "significant" not necessarily in terms of quantity, but "significant" in terms of content impact. I so far think he means well, but he almost always runs into problems with his WP:BOLD edits. I am not sure what keeps bothering him. Mercy11 (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not useful to describe an editor with a different viewpoint as "unhappy for years". Other editors already had a paragraph or more in this article about Albizu Campos' accusations against Rhoads. Since he linked those charges to his attacks on American imperialism and campaign for nationalism, it seemed to me that his 1932 quote should be here, in his article, since he influenced other nationalists by his campaign. And, since other editors introduced this issue, it also seemed to me that the 1932 conclusions of the Puerto Rican Attorney General and the Puerto Rican medical doctors involved in their investigation should also be included. But that is material someone deleted. It hardly seems that you can tell about Albizu Campos agitating over purported serious American medical abuses, and not show the outcome of the investigation done by Puerto Rican nationals into the issue, which cleared the Americans of wrongdoing.Parkwells (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's imbalanced to cover Rhoads heavily in Albizu or vice versa, since both played a significant role in each other's lives and legacies. If anything, Rhoads was more important to Albizu at the time, but Albizu is more important to Rhoads today. Andrevan@ 22:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem as the History tab shows (I have not been as actively involved as Parkwells, Andreavan and Nelsondenis but the Tab doesn't lie) is that Parkwells has been making a large number of edits, and particularly edits of significant impact (this is true of both the Albizu Campos and the Rhoads articles). Since the Campos article has been established and stable for many years, it is naturally more prudent to make changes in a measured manner. Parkwells chose to do them in a WP:Bold fashion, but ignored Measured. With all consideration to Parkwells' good intentions, I see he has taken the liberty of rewording several sections to fit his understanding of the subjects. While none of these may be problems per se, the practice appears to have shown little sensitivity in regards to his reaction to Nelsondenis's reverts of some of his edits. If I was Parkwells, I would had followed WP:consensus and WP:Dispute more closely, and would had sought to develop more of a partnership with Nelsondenis instead. And I would had definitely edited the article with 100% citations to back up 100% of my edits: that would not have given Nelsondenis the opportunity to revert. Nelsondenis brought the matter to discussion (at 01:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)), but Parkwells did not respond and instead went on with the edits. Nelsondenis posted additional concerns at 14:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC), and it was then that Parkwells made his first contact - but a contact nevertheless. Had I been Parkwells, I would had definitely brought the matter to discussion without waiting for someone else to react. But if not, I would definitely stopped making additional edits. He did not do that which perhaps explains why it came to this. I note that even right now Parkwells continues to make considerable changes to the Rhoads article when others are aggresively editing his edits there. Not a smart thing if you ask most mature editors around here. Mercy11 (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Mercy, I think Parkwells has shown he is willing to work productively on this. Andrevan@ 14:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Good you perceive that. I hope you are right. But last I read he was still hung up on nationalistic issues (the investigation done by Puerto Rican nationals into the issue, which cleared the Americans of wrongdoing) that have no basis in this forum. Hope you are right. Mercy11 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I think he will agree that if we name them and identify them as Governor Beverley's appointees that will clarify their political affiliations. Andrevan@ 16:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Page unprotection[edit]

The page has been unprotected by yours truly; sorry to override you Tony, but I don't think that is really appropriate in this case. Parkwell listed a series of edits which seem valid to me on this page and nobody has responded that they are not. He appears suited to discussion in detail on a variety of issues; we should not accuse him of bad faith. Andrevan@ 23:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hummm. Not that I am against the page unprotection per se, because I too had sensed -minor as it was- a willingness by Parkwells to reach agreement.
As such, I think that unprotection on the basis of your Parkwells argument was not incorrect.
However, the page was not protected because of Parkwells (to deal with single editors there are other resources, such as blocking, banning from a single article, etc); it was protected because of a looming edit war between two long-time editors. Unprotecting the page sends the (incorrect assumption and incorrect message) that the problem was with Parkwells - it wasn't (at least not entirely). It also incorrect to unprotect it because it was done by someone, Andrevan, who is himself heavily involved in the editing of the article (as well heavily nvolved in editing the other article in this issue, Cornelius P. Rhoads) and which generated the inital concern by Nelsondenis). It was also wrong to unprotect because it was not done following proper Wikipedia procedures: the right thing to do was for Andrevan to discuss his plan with Tony and achieve an agreement on the unprotection. It was also wrong because it opens the door to a real mess should a new, unaware and uninvolved editor happen to come by and unbeknownst to him, make changes to the article that affect the elements currently under discussion, precisely while negotiations are still ongoing. Again, I don't oppose the unprotection, but I do think it was premature. Mercy11 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
It's true that I rescued Rhoads from obscurity several years ago and have researched the scandal extensively, so that I am not uninvolved (although I have not edited Pedro Albizu Campos very much nor do I know much about him outside of the context of Rhoads, and this protection was on the former not the latter). However, neither is Tony a dispassionate editor here, who has edited this article and many others on Puerto Rican topics extensively so the issue is really with the original protection, which appeared to be around the Parkwells argument; more to the point, articles aren't brokered and if a new editor did show up and interact with us or make bold edits, that is the best thing that could happen for this article. Andrevan@ 15:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I think Tony was right to sense a dispute brewing and want to take action, and of course he's a great asset to the encyclopedia and the Puerto Rican topics, but I certainly think he was overestimating the degree to which Parkwells was uncooperative. We can navigate through this civilly. Andrevan@ 15:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Too short paragraphs[edit]

The following short paragraphs and one-sentence paragraphs (about US land grabs in Central America and region) should be combined into one, with repetition of the full title of "United Fruit Company" reduced. This seems basic editing, and not a controversial matter to bring to the Talk page, but someone reverted my edits to try to achieve such concision. Let's talk about how to treat this better. <<In 1912 the Cayumel Banana company, a U.S. corporation, orchestrated the military invasion of Honduras in order to obtain hundreds of thousands of acres of Honduran land, and tax-free export of its entire banana crop.[17]

By 1928 the United Fruit Company, also a US corporation, owned over 200,000 acres of prime Colombian farmland. In December of that year, its officials put down a labor strike in what was called the Banana Massacre, resulting in the deaths of 1,000 persons, including women and children. [18][19]

By 1930, United Fruit owned over one million acres of land in Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Mexico and Cuba.[17] By 1940, in Honduras alone, UFC owned 50 percent of all private land in the entire country.[17]

By 1940, in Honduras alone, the United Fruit Company owned 50 percent of all private land in the entire country.[17]

By 1942, United Fruit owned 75 percent of all private land in Guatemala - plus most of Guatemala's roads, power stations and phone lines, the only Pacific seaport, and every mile of railroad.The U.S. government supported these economic exploits, and provided military "persuasion" whenever necessary.[20]>> Please propose a solution if you don't like mine.Parkwells (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  • There is no problem with retaining the name "United Fruit Company." GM, GE, IT&T, and IBM are commonly known acronyms for General Motors, General Electric, International Telephone and Telegraph, and International Business Machines. UFC is not a commonly known acronym for United Fruit Company, especially since the United Fruit Company name no longer exists. As for the short paragraphs - they correspond to different dates, different acreages of ownership, different precentages of ownership, and different countries. The reader can better absorb all this factual information in distinct paragraph units.
All this needless editing back-and-forth has created a redundancy in the 5th paragraph, and that one-sentence 5th paragraph should be removed. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Good, now Parkwells try to reach a an agreement with Nelsondenis between the "Albizu Campos and Rhoads" issue here so that the protection can be lifted. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't even know what the issues are any longer, except that editors here want to make their own changes or none at all. It is perfectly appropriate to use an acronym within a paragraph in which it's been defined (such as my suggestion for UFC above), whether or not it is commonly used elsewhere. Nelsondenis prefers his version; that's all. Parkwells (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you might take a broader view. United Fruit Company is the name which many editors, not just I, have implicitly agreed upon. UFC is the usage which you alone have suggested. Moreover, UFC in this Wikipedia connects directly to Ultimate Fighting Championship. If you google "UFC" you will see the same result: Ultimate Fighting Championship. The United Fruit Company (or United Fruit) is a clear, unambiguous, uncomplicated usage which multiple editors before you, have agreed upon in this article. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable not to use a non-standard abbreviation. Andrevan@ 16:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Rhoads investigation[edit]

This section now reads only that the Rockefeller Institute conducted an investigation. Do you intend to leave the impression that only Americans investigated this in 1932? That's not accurate. The Puerto Rican AG led a thorough investigation of more than 250 medical records, not just the 13 patients who had died. I really don't know what your goal is here. Parkwells (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is valid. Governor Beverly and his appointees also conducted an investigation. To be sensitive about this issue here, the reason why the objection is to characterizing them as "Puerto Rican nationals" is because they were not "nationalists," but loyalists to the American colonial government. They were likely essentially "tories;" if we think there was a cover-up, they may not have been given records by Governor Beverly (whom I believe was American if I recall correctly) - Beverly also wrote about censoring a letter, I have read this personally in the archives and I believe it shows up in one of the secondary sources as well. I do not think we should speculate on this in the article, but we should neither characterize these people as simply Puerto Rican nationals, since we can accurately identify them as part of the government faction and not the nationalist faction of Baldoni, Albizu, etc. Andrevan@ 23:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
My intention was not to identify their political party (not Nationalists), but that they were native Puerto Rican, not Americans - that's what I meant. Just because editors don't like their politics isn't reason to hide that they were involved. Yes, Beverley was American, but he also quickly labeled Rhoads' letter as a "confession" and libel to the Puerto Rican people, so he seemed on their side. No one can characterize them as "tories" without a source, and the possible influence of that on the investigation would require another source. Just do as Mercy11 says and state the facts. But that editor didn't like my stating that they were Puerto Rican citizens, so it's rather confusing for either article. Parkwells (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, this is my speculation to call them tories, and nobody uses that language, I'm just explaining on an aside here so you understand the context. It's true that the Puerto Rican doctors were Puerto Ricans. Andrevan@ 15:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Later years[edit]

  • 1)Content says "It has been alleged that Albizu Campos was amongst the subjects of that experimentation."[49] The cite for this is simply the 1994 ACHRE report on government testing in general. It does not address the case of Campos, so the allegation is not adequately cited. Indirect voice is discouraged by WP: who alleged this and when?Parkwells (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 2)The cited link for Villanueva's article on Campos (did he make the allegation above?) goes to a Buffalo State University "orientation" website, not a paper at a web page. "Victor Villanueva, a professor in English at Washington State University wrote in 2009 that Albizu had repeatedly said that he was being subjected to radiation. Villanueva also researched and confirmed the U.S. Department of Energy disclosure of radiation experiments."[50] Do you have another link to this paper? I can't find it. Thanks -Parkwells (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Albizu himself alleged, and it would be awesome if someone who speaks Spanish can find a quote from his interviews or something where he says he thinks Rhoads is irradiating him in prison. I know this shows up in Aponte-Vazquez's self-published work which is actually extremely well cited to archival sources among other things, not all of which I have access to, but I imagine Villanueva may have seen some of the same Spanish language sources that Aponte-Vazquez used, although I am not vouching for this as RS. I did go to the Rockefeller Archive Center and I have I think about 30 pages written about this here, which isn't usable as-is since it relies heavily on archival sources. I have scans of all of them, but I don't think we can cite them directly. Andrevan@ 23:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
It was my understanding, too, that Villanueva had written that Albizu complained of suffering radiation, so why the indirect "It is alleged..."? Should be with the Villanueva reference.Parkwells (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you are right. Andrevan@ 16:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Nationalist Party[edit]

"In response to Roosevelt's declaration of U.S. "Manifest Destiny," Nationalist activists started organizing in Puerto Rico." This needs a cite; the assertion is unsourced. It seemes to be a delayed response for a catalyzing event, as Roosevelt ended his term in 1909, and the first date related to the Nationalist Party in this section is 1919.Parkwells (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

US Expansion in Latin America[edit]

Note duplicate sentences: in next to last paragraph is: The U.S. government supported these economic exploits, and provided military "persuasion" whenever necessary.[20]

In last paragraph is: The U.S. government supported all these economic exploits, and provided military "persuasion" whenever necessary. Openly and proudly, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt declared ..." This structure implies that land expansion was done under Roosevelt, but it all happened after he left. What president authorized military "persuasion"? It would be useful to say who carried out Roosevelt's vision, and to tell when the military was used.Parkwells (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Citations given. Roosevelt precedent amplified.Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Historical context[edit]

In this section, there was duplication of content on the two 1930s massacres. Deleted this version in favor of more complete one with citation: "The Nationalist movement was intensified by the Ponce Massacre and the Rio Piedras Massacre, which showed the violence which the United States was prepared to use, in order to maintain its colonial regime in Puerto Rico. The profits generated by this one-sided arrangement were enormous."Parkwells (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Accusations against Rhoads[edit]

Lederer shows that Rhoads publicly apologized in November for the letter to staff and doctors of the Anemia Commission, where he was working, before returning to NY in Dec., and before Albizu was given and distributed the letter, and the full scandal erupted. I think it's worth adding. "Rhoads had already returned to New York, after publicly apologizing for the letter to the staff and doctors of the Anemia Commission, where he was working."[1]Parkwells (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - True, and I am not going to disagree with you. However, regardless of his apologies, the fact remains that he did write the letter, which tells a lot of what a racist he was and what he felt for the people of Puerto Rico. Joke? Racism is not a joking matter, it was not then and it is not now. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not say it was. This is also part of the account, however, according to testimony taken at the time.Parkwells (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't particularly mind if we include Rhoads' apology in this article, but I do question what the underlying motivation is here. That Rhoads apologized doesn't really affect Albizu's subsequent accusations that Rhoads was carrying out a U.S. conspiracy to exterminate native peoples. Whether Rhoads personally felt remorse for his racist letter is also irrelevant, since Albizu's major argument is an anti-colonial one and not a racial one. He was using Rhoads to attack the system by arguing that Rhoads' seeming disregard for the Puerto Rican people was shared by his countrymen. Basically what I think happened is that Rhoads advanced his own personal medical research interests at the expense of medical ethics, treating Puerto Ricans like lab rats. What Albizu argued in 1932 is much different from that, he was actually saying that Rhoads intentionally injected some kind of contagious cancer (remember, cancer isn't well-known these days, and Albizu calls it the "virus cancer" or something) into Puerto Rican patients, trying to get rid of the natives a la Columbian smallpox blanket so that he could, as he says in the letter, make the place more livable. Basically lebensraum. Rhoads' letter is so shocking even in 1932 because he's not joking about race, he's joking about genocide, and Albizu took him literally. Andrevan@ 02:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • As shocking as it was in 1932, the practice continues today. A group home was recently found to be conducting medical experiments on orphaned black and Latino children. This place is just four blocks from my house: [1] [2] Though not directly relevant to our current subject (Rhoads), it does provide context - this type of "medical practice" on poor and vulnerable people, has a long and continuing history. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I do question what the underlying motivation is here. Please give me some credit for trying to add to the full account. I was the one who moved Albizu's long quote (which I think Andrevan found) to this article from the Rhoads one, thinking that indeed it shows how he used this as part of his anti-colonial, nationalist campaign. Have deleted R's apology here. Parkwells (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean your motivation in general which seems to be to tell the whole story and I think we're doing fine. I concur with the removal of the apology on this page but it should certainly appear on Rhoads' page. Andrevan@ 14:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The conspiracy need not have been only based on the (devious) goal of exterminating native people. Using subjects against their knowledge and/or consent for the purpose of advancing science on behalf of the U.S. war effort could equally well have been reason for a conspiracy. I am not saying Rhoads was part of a conspiracy; I am saying we should consider, at least, all the possibilities, accusations, allegations and charges made by Albizu Campos, Aponte Vazquez, Puerto Rico's Attorney General, Katz, Lederer, etc al, et al, et al, as possible basis of a conspiracy and proceed (with Sources) from there.
AND, even if there was no conspiracy, that would not automaticaly clear Rhoads name: perhaps he was still careless, malicious, devious, murderer, etc, etc etc, based on facts such as he had his own separate set of lab notes, he presented an apology, he went on to Cidra to do his own experimentation there, etc etc etc. Again, I am not saying he was careless, malicious, devious, or murderer; I am saying we should consider, at least, all the possibilities, accusations, allegations and charges made by Albizu Campos, Aponte Vazquez, Puerto Rico's Attorney General, Katz, Lederer, etc al, et al, et al, as possible basis of improper, non-standard, irregular, unapproved, illegitimate, illegal, etc etc etc etc bahaviours that would make him into more than just a racist, and proceed (with Sources) from there. My underlying theme here is Sources; if there are sources and it is relevant, let's expand the article with them. The ongoing controversy is not because of racism: racism was proven by the fact that his name was taken away from the ACCR prize. The ongoing controversy is because his name has never been entirely cleared by any authority; the results so far have been Inconclusive - in particular since, given the advances in forensic science, criminology, etc (DNA testing and the rest), the Govt of Puerto Rico has still not performed an exhustive investigation of the 8-13 individuals that died under Rhoads's watch, nor an exhustive and conclusive investigation on the cause of death of Albizu Campus. Mercy11 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This article in the Puerto Rico Herald may provide some additional sourcing: [3] . Nelsondenis248 (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The only context in which we can use this is to show how the press misunderstood and distorted the story. Andrevan@ 16:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Mercy, I agree with you up until the last sentence - the government of Puerto Rico investigated this in 1932, and Rhoads' reputation has been thrice cleared as a murderer: Beverley and Rockefeller in 1932, and the AACR/Katz this century. By 1932 standards, this was the exhaustive, conclusive investigation, even though it was limited to hospital patients (including the deaths, I always get mixed up which number Rhoads used in the letter (8) and the one that Aponte attributed to him (13) which I think comes from the actual results of the Rockefeller investigation of the hospital patients, I always thought was weird). The deaths are all explained, and deaths are going to happen at a hospital (8 or 13 out of 257 is pretty good, I think, esp. considering most people were poor, sick and malnourished to begin with) and this is the point that leads the academic establishment to discredit Aponte's work - I wish I had a source for the ostracism that he experienced in the 80s, I think he lost his professorship or something. Katz and Lederer, who have seen the Rockefeller information as well, say "this is a racist - but not a murderer" and conclude he was actually kidding about the killings and cancer injection. Things are complicated by grand jury privileged information as well as Rhoads' involvement with US atomic energy and radiation work that we don't have as it is classified or beyond FOIA in the US gov (ie Albizu's claim that he was being irradiated). They didn't reopen the investigation which I think is your point, based on the new research performed by Aponte and others, that shows Beverley censored the second letter, Celia Nunez withheld information, etc. Aponte actually interviewed Nunez as an older woman, but I'm not sure there was anything useful from it. Had P.R. actually reopened this in the 80s or even in 2002, perhaps we could have gotten sources from the School of Tropical Medicine or the Puerto Rican national archives where Aponte did a lot of his reading opened up. Anyway, while I think the Rhoads case should be treated as a big deal, technically it's not "inconclusive" as per your last sentence. Andrevan@ 16:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Rhoads sworn to uphold the standards of medical practice for the preservation of life and the relieving of human suffering and yet, from his own testimony, he gets drunk which led to his writting of the infamous letter. The following are some of the facts that form the basis for the controversy and should be discussed in the article (ideally in prose, otherwise in list form):
  • Rhoads was likely in violation of federal law by consuming alcohol during the Prohibition, becoming, in effect, a criminal.
  • Rhoads wrote a letter disparaging Puerto Ricans and Italians.
  • The Governor of Puerto Rico at the time was a Rhoads' compatriot, and thus unlikely to jeopardize bringing down Rhoads in favor of those "poor, sick and malnourished" people that died under his watch.
  • The yankee governor of Puerto Rico had in his possession a much more self-incriminating letter by Rhoads and which he disposed of.
  • The Rockefeller Foundation had the loss of its institutional reputation at stake over the Rhoads matter.
  • Various American organizations covered up the entire event to the extent it was "forgotten".
  • TIME and the NYT whitewashed the entire thing on behalf of Rhoads and the Rockefeller Foundation.
  • Rhoads was stripped of the honor of having an AACR prize named after him because of his questionable character.
  • Aponte Vazquez, who revived this matter, is a member of the same Puerto Rico Independence Party as Albizu Campos, the party that has been covertly followed and persecuted by the American government via the FBI.
  • AACR kept secret the contents of the Katz report, the report that stripped Rhoads of his AACR honor.
  • There are several others such undisputed facts that I am leaving out in the interest of precision and space.
Clearly the matter has not been investigated using 2013 standards (forensic, chemical, DNA testing etc) and as such it is unsolved and inconclusive. To state otherwise, IMO, is to be ignorant to the huge advances in those scientific fields since 1931, advances which could clear up this matter once and for all and debunk one side or the other for good. Mercy11 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually Albizu was a member and president of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party which I believe is a different entity, but probably similar politically. While many of the points you make are valid, some of them are speculation, but where they are grounded in sources we should include them. I myself am not sure of the story with Prohibition in Puerto Rico at the time, Rhoads said he was drunk but witnesses didn't corroborate that for some reason, and I think it's a detail that none of the secondary sources pick up on. I also point out apparently he wanted to drive 40 miles drunk on a 1930s Ford on rural P.R. roads which seems a little reckless, so I'm inclined to trust the witnesses that say he seemed pretty sober and was just angry because someone broke into his car and stole some things. Regardless, Prohibition was repealed in 1933, so I imagine we might have been in a period where it was culturally acceptable; anyway, the sources really gloss this over so I don't think we should include the speculation about Rhoads' criminal status on the basis of being drunk, although we can certainly note that Prohibition wasn't repealed until 1933. I'm not sure what you think the AACR kept secret, as my understanding was that Katz was merely determining whether or not to rename the award. There is a lengthy FBI file on Albizu, a version of which is floating around in PDF form online, and he was certainly imprisoned and such, although I do not think Aponte was imprisoned or persecuted by the government at all. Anyway, I think there is just a problem with your tone. The interesting thing about the Rhoads case is the ambiguity, it /might/ have been a cover-up, but we don't know that, so we can't present it as fact. I think more to the point most of the items you list here are relevant to Rhoads and not Albizu. Andrevan@ 21:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
None of the items in my list above are my speculation as you stated; they are all sourced, undisputed facts. If you challenge them, there are sources to debunk your categorizing them as "speculation". If you bring forward your specific objections, I can then bring forward specific sources. However, if what you intended to say was that you agreed with all of them except the few you picked on, then let's look at those few. Some of your statements do not appear to be objections arguing factuality (as opposed to speculation) but instead general comments making observations or clarifications. I will deal with each one regardless of objective or motive:
Primarily the main problem here is that you seem to have missed my point altogether: what I am saying is that a controversy does exist and the reason for the controversy is that there are those valid facts behind it.
1. The political party names, for example, while a valid technicality to pick on on your part, they are really irrelevant: their ideologies and goals are identical although they use different tactics, and most importantly -despite both parties being legally registered political parties in a democratic country- it is a fact that both parties' leaders have been targeted by the PR Police and the FBI (Monte Maravilla murders; Juan Mari Bras; Filiberto Ojeda Rios; http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gacol3138.doc.htm) to the point that many voters, not out of concience but out of sheer intimidation, simply chose not to join or participate in them. Many more voters yet (no one may ever know), won't even vote their concience for fear their names from their Puerto Rican Independence Party affiliation will make its way to the FBI's black list. In short, the PIP replaced the PRNP and and such both parties are the same for practical purposes here.
2. As for Prohibition, you spend a lot of effort there, but here is my rebuttal: Unlike the dispariging letter Rhoads wrote and which he later claimed was a joke, Rhoads also claimed he was drunk yet he never later denied it nor claimed that it was also a joke. As such we have to take it as true confession. Law enforcement at the time did not have the tools they have today to determine the LOA in a driver's blood. You claim his drunkness is "speculation"; I disagree. The speculation would be on assuming he wasn't drunk - for it goes contrary to what was confessed, what was recorded and what was never proven otherwise. Likewise, the speculation would be on assuming he wasn't drunk based on witnesses from his party never confirming he was drunk. Never confirming is the normal thing for any friend to do so as not to implicate Rhoads further into his dilemma. In Wikipedia we work based on facts, not assumptions, so we cannot allege he was not drunk, nor keep it from the text as it is an important detail. If that detail was not important, it would not have been recorded by the sources out there. His accussers ran off and had a party with this fact - that's my point. Even if he wasn't drunk, the fact he lied about his actual soberity status goes to show the extend to which he was willing to go to justify his infamous letter ... or to distract attention from the alleged murders and towards the much lesser charge of violating the Prohibition Act. In any event, I am not sure which version is correct; this needs further investigation. This source says that the witnesses (not Rhoads) said he got drunk at the party: http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data/sci_fraud_4803.html
3. "I'm not sure what you think the AACR kept secret, as my understanding was that Katz was merely determining whether or not to rename the award": I am not trying to do any WP:SYN here; I am simply stating that it is a fact that the AACR never published Katz's report. AACR kept it confidential and simply returned with a vote of no confidence on Rhoads character and removed his name from the prize. Not to jump the gun here either, but I am not saying that AACR had to publish the report: they are a private organization and can operate any way they want to internally. What I am saying is that the lack of transparency by the AACR helps fuel the Rhoads' opponents sentiments and accussations who continue to argue that Rhoads was a killer. In short, since it is a controversy, there are 2 sides; since there are 2 sides, there are 2 pov's; since there are 2 pov's, we need to give each of them reasonable treatment and space in the pertinent article/s. One source for this: http://www.ipsnews.net/2003/04/rights-group-strips-racist-scientists-name-from-award/ .
4. "There is a lengthy FBI file on Albizu, a version of which is floating around in PDF form online, and he was certainly imprisoned and such, although I do not think Aponte was imprisoned or persecuted by the government at all."
  • I don't mean to be offensive, but I find it at least insensitive and at most irresponsible of you to state "a version of which is floating around...online", as if we were talking about, say, The Salsa-Dancing Puerto Rican Dog, when we are discussing a matter where people's lives have been lost.
  • I believe you missed my point on Aponte Vazquez altogether: Just like Megan's Law was the result of someone who had been affected by it (her mother pushed for the law), it is normal to see grassroots political efforts being voiced by people of the same political convictions as those who were affected. Thus it is perfectly normal for independentistas like Aponte to be the ones to resurrect the Rhoads case (by analogy, Megan's mother wasn't the one raped).
  • IAE, one source on Aponte's being persecuted by the government: http://www.peacehost.net/WhiteStar/Voces/aponte.html
5. "there is just a problem with your tone": Sometimes it takes tone to get a point across. Did women get their right to vote by just sitting home and tending to the kids? Did Americans get their independence from the British just by celebrating Thanksgiving Day with the Native Americans? Likewise tone is at times beneficial! You and I agree on at least this much, that "the Rhoads case...might have been a cover-up, but we don't know that, so we can't present [the allegation of a cover-up] as fact". Agreed. This still-inconclusive "cover-up" needs to be, not ignored on the basis that it is not fact (it is not fact in the sense that, say, the Watergate cover-up is today a fact that was once only suspicion), but presented as its denouncers continue to claim, on the basis that the possibility of a cover-up, with still inconclusive evidence, does continue to exist. It is such possibility that forms the foundation for the controversy that rages to this day, aided by the fact that a satisfactory investigation that would had brought the case to closure never took place. And while you add that "most of the items you list here are relevant to Rhoads and not Albizu" the fact is that it was in this article's Talk Page that the issue of "Accusations against Rhoads" was brought up, so naturally responses are brought up here as well. That said, we can pick and choose which list points above are most appropriate to which article and add them accordingly. However, IMO, all items need mentioning somewhere since they can all be sourced. IAE, one source is on the alleged cover-up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-targeted-assassinations-by-induced-heart-attack-and-cancer/5326382
When we start chipping away at any of the facts I listed above, we start erroding the foundation for the controversy, and that is unacceptable; we, in effect, put those who are alleging a cover-up in the same category as the feds put Albizu Campos when they dismissed his charges on the illegal use of radiation against him as coming from a patient who had gone "mad". Can you find just one single source that states that the case against Rhoads was ever closed by the Puerto Rico Justice Department? If not, then the prominent case is still open. The case may be inactive ("not currently being worked on") but the two statuses are not the same thing. Only cases that reach the maturity of a conclusion become closed; those that do not reach conclusion are, by their very nature, inconclusive, and that's the state with the Rhoads case. And as for the "Rhoads' reputation has been thrice cleared as a murderer: ...Rockefeller in 1932, and the AACR/Katz this century", you can't be serious in alluding to private organizations like Rockefeller and AACR having the power to "clear" someone of an alleged murder charge. Where you got that from is beyond me. This is an example of how, unwillingly as it may be, we could end up glorifying Rhoads in an article.
BTW, going back to your earlier comments, do you have a source that states that Beverley cleared him of murder? (I assume you meant PR's Justice Dept under the Beverly administration). This is important because no Justice Dept (DA/AG) can actually "clear" someone. It can only bring no charges or drop charges (due to, e.g., lack of evidence). Point is, only a court of law during actual trial proceedings can actually clear someone of murder. Do you have a source that says Rhoads actually went through the proceedings of a criminal trial for murder in Puerto Rico and was "cleared"? Since I haven't read the word "acquitted" anywhere here, I tend to believe he wasn't cleared by Beverley as much as criminal charges were never brought up against him by his compatriot. (It is then easy to see why the PRNP and people Puerto Rico, in Ponce and Rio Piedras, just couldn't take it any more and rebelled against the authorities there six years later - especially considering that the incumbent US President replaced Beverley (let's ignore the 2 interim governors in between) with Ironhand Winship, who persecuted and ordered the murders of the Nationalists.) If Rhoads just didn't go thru criminal proceedings and was instead just not investigated further by the DA (due to, again, lack of additional tools at the time), then we shouldn't be saying "cleared" in the article or here and should instead just say that charges were not brought against him. And second, let's make sure he was cleared of a criminal murder charge, not cleared of the much lesser administrative charge. (A state generally has 3 types of laws: civil, criminal, and administrative.) The facts need to be stated properly.
Do we mention anywhere in the Rhoads article that he was himself the pathologist who performed the autopsy on 3 of the 8 Puerto Ricans that died under his watch? Such 3 autopsies were never certified by other independent patologist. It is not known if those 3 people did in fact die as a result of his experiments. Point is, just killing 1 person makes him a criminal - and having performed autopsy on his own subjects would, by its very nature, be highly irregular. Finally, how about human rights violations? No one to my knowledge ever cleared Rhoads of human rights violations. That would not be a simple tarnishing of his character reputation for being a racist, but an actual violation of federal law. Were HRV charges ever considered? ever bought against him? was he ever acquitted of them?
Mercy11 (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
In general I think you make good points. My main argument is that you can't present the case as inconclusive and still open, since it was closed with conclusions made by Beverley in particular as well as the private organizations.
  • Your speculation as to Rhoads being a criminal for being drunk strikes me as misleading since the speculation is not whether he was drunk, but what was the legal status of alcohol in Puerto Rico and whether that was enforced.
  • Similarly, while I think many Rhoads-era doctors held to a modern standard of human rights would be guilty, this wasn't really on the table in the 1930s. People were more concerned about whether Rhoads was conducting unethical human experimentation or pushing an eugenics agenda.
  • I also think your bit about "clearing" or "acquitting" versus "concluding" is something of a red herring. Testimony was taken and the Puerto Rican government issued a statement on the matter; unless we can find a source that questions the legitimacy or depth of the Beverley investigation. The case was certainly closed; there were "conclusions reached" in the investigation by the Puerto Rican government.
  • I'm not sure what's offensive about the file floating around online. I don't mean that to trivialize the contents; I found it on a website that was not a reliable source. I contacted the FBI about it but they wanted a few hundred bucks to produce the files, which I decided was an unnecessary expense since I found it "floating around." The NY times also wrote about this issue which would be a better source to use for the FBI surveillance and persecution of Albizu. Unfortunately many of the Aponte sources aren't reliable.
  • As to the AACR, we don't really have any sources that suggest there even was an internal report prepared by Katz that he declined to make public. I think he probably took some notes for his own use but did not prepare an article for publication.
  • I think a few of the sources you linked do not appear to be WP:RS. Globalresearch.ca definitely is not. I don't think we need to distort the sources we have to present the possibility of a cover-up and the existence of a strong POV represented by Aponte, et al. alleging that there were facts not examined in the investigation. Andrevan@ 15:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I really think that this discussion should be ended for now. The Rhoads situation sort of reminds me of a famous case involving a famous football player where, in my opinion, most people believe that he was guilty of murder, but there was no concrete prove to that effect nor enough witnesses to convict him. The contents of Rhoads letter also reminded me of another brilliant scientist who believed in human experimentation involving genocide. However, unlike Rhoads, this other scientist was permitted to carry out his wicked dreams. That person which I am talking about is of course Josef Mengele. So, lets' put this to rest for now until some more evidence comes up in the future. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way in regard to the Prohibition in Puerto Rico, with the passage of the Jones Act of 1927, prohibition was extended to Puerto Rico and ratified in Puerto Rico in July 1917. Prohibition won in part because it was linked to patriotism and morality. However, prohibition was almost impossible to enforce because of the colonial status of the island. It was that status that brought an end to prohibition in Puerto Rico with the demise of prohibition in the US in 1933. This is just to set things straight in regard to the question of prohibition in PR. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Good to know, and thanks, you are the voice of reason as usual. I am happy to let lie the articles as they stand now and think we have all shown we can discuss any changes which are deemed controversial. Andrevan@
Andrevan, in general I think you make good points, with some exceptions:
  • "Similarly..." - It seems you are speculating with the "People were more concerned about whether Rhoads was conducting unethical human experimentation or pushing an eugenics agenda [than holding Rhoads to a modern standard of human rights]." Do you have a source for that? If not then we don't know either way, right?
  • "I also think..." - I disagree. A case is closed when it is. You would expect to find at least 1 single document where someone states it was closed, or at least 1 single source that quotes another source that says it was closed. If we don't know, then it is not closed and that means we cannot say it was closed. If you want the article to say the case was closed, you need a source, otherwise it's you own WP:OR and will be removed. BTW, my observation was never on " 'clearing' or 'acquitting' versus 'concluding' ", but on "clearing" versus "acquitting".
  • "I'm not sure..." - I don't know what is so sanctimonious about NYT that incliness you to state it "would be a better source to use", especially when it was the NYT that violated principles of good journalism about Rhoads in the 1930s by accepting money to whitewash the matter. This inclination sounds entirely unnatural to me. IAE, you might not have paid the cost of the Albizu files to the FBI but, according to a report in El Mundo dated 12 September 1990, p.14 (“Entragan Parte del Record de Albizu”, by Thomas Stella), Aponte Vazquez did pay such costs (under the FOIA of course) - many years before you looked into it (which I will speculate you attempted in this century, not last as in Aponte) and many years before even Serrano did for the public at large (2006 I believe). I think you are too quick to discard Aponte's sources at large, instead of using those that do pass muster and moving on. (If I am not mistaken, it was you who had stated/complained earlier that Aponte had dedicated all his life to Albizu/Rhoads affairs. Something seems somewhat contradictory in those two approaches.) BTW, it was also the NYT that said - in Rhoads's epoch - "A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere" (though the NYT did offer a retraction on July 17, 1969).
  • "As to the AACR..." - I never said Katz declined to make his report public; I said AACR did. And one such source is HERE.
  • "I think a few..." - Instead of stating "a few of the sources you linked do not appear to be WP:RS" you might want to state exactly which ones you do have an objection to - so I can respond. So far the only one appears to be Globalresearch.ca. If you want to challenge it, you can take it HERE. As for now, it stays until it is debunked by our peers. Fair?
Also, I would not use "POV" and "Aponte" in the same sentence. It is both confusing and inappropriate for these reasons: (1) POV has a very specific meaning and association in Wikipedia, namely, WP:POV, and as such it is something we use only in reference to a policy that applies to WP editors, not to authors. (2) By stating "strong POV by Aponte" you are singling him out as an isolated case in a manner that waters down the validity of his arguments: somehow you seem to have forgotten that that is was the AACR removed Rhoads from their prize as a result of an investigation by Katz in response to Aponte's research.
Mercy11 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)

  • The New York Times is the paper of record. You're not getting anywhere by attacking it, and I don't see why it matters whether they predicted the future or participated in the whitewashing (I don't think we have a source that shows they accepted a bribe though). Being a reliable source doesn't mean you can't be wrong sometimes. It will always be a reliable source.
  • What exactly is globalresearch.ca? It doesn't seem to be RS to me. Regardless, it flatly misstates the facts which contradicts all our other sources, so we should discard it.
  • You appear to be right about the AACR not making their report public.
  • By the same argument that we should not say the case was "closed," we should not say it is "inconclusive." Conclusions were reached. We might have reason to doubt the conclusions, but they were certainly reached.
  • However, you are mistaken in that I did not attack Aponte's life; that was Parkwells.
  • Aponte's work is self-published, which is specifically barred by WP:RS. The work that led to the AACR was actually Edwin Vazquez - no relation.
  • Also, who do you think you're talking to defining NPOV? I've been an admin on this project since 2004. It's perfectly reasonable to describe "the POV" of an author, because our goal is to balance those POVs to produce a neutral POV. Andrevan@ 13:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, as far as Aponte paying for the records, indeed he did, and the ready availability of those records online is why I didn't. The fact is that Aponte was ostracized by the academic community and now writes historical fiction novellas. His self-published work isn't reliable per our policies. Andrevan@ 17:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Susan E. Lederer, " 'Porto Ricochet': Joking about Germs, Cancer, and Race Extermination in the 1930s", American Literary History, Volume 14. No. 4, Winter 2002, Retrieved 12 December 2012.

Spanish language sources[edit]

There seems to be a great collection of news articles here. I don't speak Spanish. Is there a way to auto-translate a PDF, or would anyone care to help out? Andrevan@ 17:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've used Google Translate - between having had some Spanish and more French, and knowing the context for the articles, it has been helpful.Parkwells (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I can look at some of them -- but where are the articles? This is a long list of titles, but I can't the the articles themselves. Is there another link? Nelsondenis248 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
This seems more of an index, but I've found some of these in Spanish form. I'll get some more links. Andrevan@ 04:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Andrevan, if its only a couple of paragraphs, I may be able to help. Mercy11 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Material on Charles Allen[edit]

The first civilian governor is a topic in numerous articles on Puerto Rico, as well as his own, and was noted as having become president of American Sugar Refining Co. in 1901, has a caption on his photo as "first sugar baron of Puerto Rico", and said to have had outsized influence on the economy. According to the NY Times (which I cited in the article), he did not become pres. until 1913 of American Sugar and only served two years, resigning in June 1915. So I think he can't be said to have owned most of the sugar plantation land in 1930, along with US banks, as is also alleged here. Also, to describe him as the "first sugar baron" seems inaccurate. I'm sure there were big landowners who owned sugar plantations in Puerto Rico while Spain still controlled the island. Corrected for the facts in the NY Times article.Parkwells (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - definitely an interesting man and family (and steam engine!)Parkwells (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Support for Albizu Campos' strategy[edit]

Truman Clark's 1975 history of Puerto Rico and the US up to 1933 (cited here for full text of Rhoads' letter and for more in Rhoads' article) also makes an interesting point of noting that Albizu Campos linked the Rhoads letter to continuing Nationalist Party concerns about US governors encouraging labor emigration to the US and promoting birth control. As a result of that, Beverley struggled with a much larger political crisis (for him) later in 1932 when he was attacked in Puerto Rico and even moreso by American Catholics for his support of birth control. His provoking this controversy contributed to his being removed from the governor's position. This seems worth adding for showing how Albizu Campos used these issues in his campaign.Parkwells (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Assumption that a photo is "decorative"[edit]

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[edit]

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, [4] 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[edit]

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:

Keep it[edit]



Remove it[edit]
  • 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[edit]

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.

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

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)