# Talk:Luisa Capetillo

Hello! Just a heads up that I am planning on overhauling and improving this article as part of the ongoing ninth Women in Green edit-a-thon. My primary goals are to improve sourcing and to expand the article in preparation for a GA review. If you have an issue with this (or with any of my other edits), I am happy to discuss it here. I will be working in my sandbox, so feel free to check my progress there. There will probably be a very big edit coming tomorrow or in the next couple days. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)


### Luisa Capetillo
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in promoting it to FA. This will be my second FAC after Rosa Parks. Any comments would be appreciated, but image copyright and MOS compliance would be most helpful.
Thanks, Spookyaki (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)


#### Grnrchst
Hey there, happy to see this might be going on to FAC soon. Here's some notes I have on a first read:

It's striking to me that the leading image is very low resolution. Are there any higher-resolution versions of this photograph out there that we could upload? Also, it would be helpful for the FAC image review process if evidence of publication, where and when the photograph was taken and/or information about the photographer is provided; in my experience, FAC image review is overly-rigorous about these things.
@Grnrchst: Thank you for taking the review. Can't respond to everything immediately as I'm a bit under the weather after getting my annual shots and because searching for information on the image's publication took a lot of my energy, but do you think this version is better in those respects? Spookyaki (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The image is a bit sharper, and thanks for providing more information about the photo. Unfortunately it's still very low-res, but at least it's easier to make out now. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"Claim" is a word to watch, as it calls the credibility of the statement into question. In the explanatory footnotes, "claims" is used for four different researchers.
My understanding is that "claim" is acceptable if there is actual doubt about the credibility of a given statement, such as when there are multiple competing claims. Is this not accurate? Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
That is correct, but that's not how it's being used in the efns. For example, saying "Hewitt and researcher Araceli Tinajero and both claim that she worked as a reader in Ybor City" but then not providing any evidence to the contrary (even the other source says she "probably" worked as a reader there); while for the birth dates, it seems the article is taking the side of Peña Jordán over Valle Ferrer, but then uses "claims" for both. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we need to mention the entire title of the source (with translations) in the explanatory footnote, when a citation to that same source is provided right afterwards.
Trimmed details. Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Double use of "featuring" and "featured" in one sentence.
Changed first to "with". Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"She was baptized" We've just been talking about her mother, so the use of the "she" pronoun is ambiguous; it should be made clear that we're talking about Capetillo here.
Added name. Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"prestigious Doña María Sierra Soler private school" Not so sure we should be calling the school "prestigious" in wikivoice. That it's a private school already communicates a certain amount of prestige.
Removed. Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"European Spaniards" This reads a bit weird to me. Aren't all Spaniards European?
Yeah, fair enough. Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"the local Arecibo newspaper" Was it the only newspaper in Arecibo? What was it called?
Not clear. Valle Ferrer says "at the beginning of the twentieth century Luisa Capetillo began writing for the newspaper of her native city, Arecibo" (which I guess does imply that it was the only one), and Ramos says "[in 1904] she wrote her first newspaper articles in Arecibo". Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"pro-union" As in, in favour of trade unionism? Or in favour of union of Puerto Rico with Spain or the United States?
Good catch. Trade unions, fixed it. Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
There's three sentences in this first paragraph about the broader strike, that aren't directly relevant to Capetillo's biography. I'd suggest trimming these a bit for concision.
I think the context is relevant, so I'll keep it for now, but if it gets brought up in the FAC, I'll see. Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Three out of four of her books are red-linked. Is there enough sourcing on them to believe they'll have their own articles in the near future?
Yes, I believe they are sufficiently notable based on my research, and I am hoping to add them myself in the future. Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Suggest linking to Hispanic.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"Like many anarcho-syndicalists, she supported organized labor movements and the general strike as a tool for disrupting these systems" The use of "many" here confuses me, because as far as I'm aware, organised labour movements and the use of the general strike are inherent to anarcho-syndicalism; are there anarcho-syndicalists that don't support these things?
Changed to Drawing on anarcho-syndicalist principles... Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"Capetillo articulated feminist ideas long before the rise of the mainstream feminist movement in the 1960s" Wouldn't this be referring to second-wave feminism? At least to me, the "rise of the mainstream feminist movement" happened with the suffragist movement, of which Capetillo was certainly a part of.
So this is part of the argument that Rivera Berruz makes. This argument is itself based on an argument by Francesca Gargallo: The scholarship of Latin American feminist philosopher Francesca Gargallo explores the historicity of feminist ideas. To this end, she advances a two-dimensional argument in regard to the exploration of feminist ideas in Latin America. First, she maintains that feminist ideas in Latin America are older than their action in history. Feminist ideas are often noted to take root during the social movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s. However, Gargallo contends that feminist ideas are much older than the time framed by social movements. The use of social movements as a point of reference tends to overlook the existence of feminist ideas that may not have had profound historical impact during their times of inception. Further, it was not unusual for feminist ideas prior to the late twentieth century to intersect with other ideas about emancipation, education, and class consciousness. Therefore, feminist ideas may not have been necessarily linked to the emancipation of women, although women were notably impacted by them. Gargallo's second claim holds that the historical origin of feminist ideas is not bound to an external philosophical process, but rather tied to reflection on the conditions of alterity generated in relationship to a patriarchal ordering of the world that is itself heir to colonialism. As a result, she argues that women’s reflections on alterity offer Latin American philosophy at large a vision of difference from a non-dominant position (Gargallo 2005, 18).[...]Capetillo is also testament to Gargallo's claim that feminist ideas of Latin America are much older than the social movements of the 1960s. Living from 1879-1922, she pre-dates the frame of the feminist movement.
It is a somewhat strange argument, I agree, but it is also what she says. Do you think it's worth it to clarify the traditional "wave" discourse, or would that be straying too far off topic? Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
It would probably be straying too far off topic to do that. I'd suggest a rewrite, but I'm not sure what to propose it be rewritten to. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I think we could probably trim the tertiary Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy citations; the two entries from it are only cited once each, for facts already verified by two or three other sources.
Those facts aren't strictly verified by the other sources, as those sources do not contain definitions of/context about anarcha-feminism and anarcho-syndicalism, which are included in the article. Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm noticing the use of present tense sometimes when quoting from some of Capetillo's works, when most of the rest of the text is in past tense. Is this correct?
It is. It's literary present tense. See this primer. Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"childish" Is this a direct quote from the obituary? If so, it should be in quotation marks.
It's not. The direct quote is "she looked at life like a child". Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article and think with a bit of work it will be ready for FAC. Best of luck moving forward with this! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: Thank you for your review! Really appreciate it. Spookyaki (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)