Talk:Boricua Popular Army/Archive 1

message: Another arguement that Nationalist leader Albizu Campos occured when a Puerto Rican struck a judge and was brought to trail.  Albizu was the lawyer and made little attempt to defend the man.  When he was sentenced, Albizu filed an appeal in which he argued in the US courts was that the Treaty of Paris was illegal due to the wording that PR would be ceeded to the USA in "payment" for Spains actions in the war.  This is a violation of the 13th Amendment according to Campos.  The US courts let the man go free rather than bring the appeal to trial.
Also all parties agree Puerto Rico is under colonial rule, the nationalists/independence party has alwasy said this as have the statehooders and the PPD joined them as the last party to do so in 1978.  It is also in the UN lists of colonies.  I'm taking out the wording that "what they would characterize as colonial"--24.152.251.248 07:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriots vs Terrorists end 

message: "Barcelo is seen as a killer by most Puerto Ricans..."
A remarkable statement about an elected governor. I have no idea of the facts of the case alluded to, but the statement seems prima facie suspicious, and no reference is given.
:For a NPOV about this, read: New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico - History: 1980s.
:Maio 19:02, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This has to do with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maravilla_Hill_case--24.152.251.248 07:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Carlos Romero Barcelo]] allusion - ''[[prima facie]]'' 

message: In the previous paragraph, their is an allusion to bank robbery. Last I checked, West Hartford bank employees are not typically members of the military. Having lived in Connecticut at the time alluded to, I can state this from personal experience.
:I beleive the bank robbery allusion is in reference to a Wells Fargo truck robbery that ocurred in Connecticut in the 1970s. I will try to look for more information about it and add it to the article when I find the time to edit it.
:Maio 19:02, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrase: "never civilian targets" 

message: "Similar struggles: American War of Independence, Sandinistas, Simon Bolivar."
Similar in what way? I've already remarked on two of these above (and the repetition seems to add nothing); the Sandinistas were not even an independentista movement.
Original issues pointed out by:
Jmabel 02:51, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar struggles 

message: A statement was added that the Macheteros used some of the Wells Fargo Money to purchase and then give away toys as gifts during a Three Kings Day celebration. Whomever added this needs to provide a cite to substantiate this. Until then I have removed the statement. --Flybd5 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toys and Three Kings Day 

message: Greetings.
I'm a Wikipedian from Puerto Rico, the base operation country for Los Macheteros. I've currently this article in my "To Do" list and would like to ask other wikipedians to NOT delete it, as it would help me greatly in editing it with a NPOV.
Nothing but <3,
Maio 19:02, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do NOT delete this article 

message: I prefer not to have an edit war, but two of my changes appear to have been effectively reverted. One is substantive, the other just a matter of spelling, but in both cases I believe I am correct. I'd rather get consensus here than keep reverting changes in the article.
At the end of the first paragraph, I changed:
:"...based on the island of Puerto Rico. They campaign for the independence of the country from the United States."
To
:"...based on the island of Puerto Rico. They campaign for the independence of Puerto Rico from the United States."
I believe that referring to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a "country" is POV, favoring the independentista perspective. Conversely, I did not want to choose "Commonwealth", because (although that is an accurate statement of current status) it begs the question of whether that status is appropriate. I would like to reinstate my neutral wording. If anyone disagrees, please comment here before 11 Jan 04.
The other is simply a matter of spelling. I'm not a native Spanish speaker, but someone changed my "Federación Universitaria Pro Independencia" to "Federacion Universitaria Pro Independencia". I'm pretty sure "Federación" should have an acute accent on the "o", but I'll go with the other if a native speaker will say that it is actually correct. Again, please comment here before 11 Jan 04.
Jmabel 21:05, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Puerto Rico is a NATION, I would say, but a colony (a country has it's own government, right?).  But it sends it's own people to the olympics.  Plus, nation is far more broad, ie Nation of Islam or the Native American Nations, Jewish Nation.  Nation would be a group of people with a strong independent identity.--128.59.143.41 06:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer not to have an edit war...

message: I'm sorry Joe, that was completely my fault. After the article move certain information was lost and I just copy/pasted the article as I had it saved in my computer -- that is, before you correctly edited it.
I agree with the points you exposed and will be changing them when I have the time.
My sincere apologies,
Maio 01:44, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: I prefer not to have an edit war... 

message: There is a reference in the article to the 'infamous Dr. Rhodes cancer "treatments"'. I, for one, have no idea what this is about. It should at least get a footnote to an external site, but probably merits an article in its own right. -- Jmabel 20:17, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
For the Patriot vs terrorist, aslo consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponce_massacre
The Dr. Rhodes stuff can be easily found with google.--128.59.143.41 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Easily found with Google" does not cut it as a citation. See WP:CITE. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a whole paper on this.  I will try and find it a post up some citations as soon as my exams are done this week.  Maybe sooner.--128.59.143.41 18:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks in advance. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Got waaaaay side tracked, because shortly after I found an academic job.  Will go back and find these citations.--24.152.251.248 07:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cancer "treatments"

message: The following was recently and anonymously added to the lead paragraph (slightly edited here to improve the English); I've cut it pending citation. "They do not consider themselves as much a 'political' group, as an enforcer, or facilitator of Puerto Rican people seeking justice, economic sovereignty, and political freedom." If there is a citation for this, it clearly belongs in the article. However, saying without citation what the group "consider themselves" is not appropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
The same editor upped the number of their active membership from 800 to 1100. Lacking a clear citation for any number, I have let the new number stand. Originally the edit said "according to government sources and community leaders": I have removed that, because it gives the illusion of authority without any clear citation. Again, a citation on a number would be very welcome. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
There should either be a citation, or an edit to reflect that this is nothing more than an opinion. --Flybd5 22:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut from article: needs citation 

message: Someone recently made a change without citation that I don't know what to make of. Previously it said "Supporters of independence in Puerto Rico polls are a small electoral minority (under 10%) when status plebiscites are held." 10% was changed to 4%. I don't know the actual numbers; does someone have a good citation on this? (Could be better worded I suppose, but that's another matter.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small electoral minority  

message: This series of anonymous edits is clearly mainly an effort to introduce POV into the article, especially the repeated use of the words "terrorism" and "terrorists". However, it also looks like it may introduce some useful material (hard to tell, because no citations given). I'd be half inclined to revert it as a mix of POV and uncited, but would welcome a salvage job, so I will leave it alone for at least a day or so to give someone a chance. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem saying the FBI calls them this; another matter entirely to call them "terrorists" in Wikipedia's narrative voice. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid. - Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't just an issue of the FBI saying that the Macheteros are a terrorist group -- with the exception of Claridad, which is published by a political party supporting independence, all media in Puerto Rico and the US refers to FALN and the Macheteros as terrorists because that is what they do -- they try to advance their political agenda by carrying out acts of terrorism. Not once have the Macheteros shown the slightest interest in using the highly developed political process in Puerto Rico to achieve their goals. They are not a political organization, and they represent an infinitesimally tiny fraction of the residents of the island (even accepting the wild 2,100 member assertion, that's a mere five hundredths of one percent of the estimated population of Puerto Rico. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used to water down facts just for the sake of being politically correct. --Flybd5 14:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, then say "described as terrorist by the FBI and by virtually all of the Puerto Rican media". I have no problem with that. But "terrorist" is an inherently non-neutral term, and should not be in Wikipedia's narrative voice. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I very clearly posted that the organization is classified as a terrorist organization by the FBI, by the media and by UN and international law definition. The FBI does not "describe" them as terrorists, the FBI says they -are- terrorists. If you have a problem with that you need to take that up with the FBI, not with me. The excuse of non-neutral language should never be used to justify rationalization based on personal feelings about the facts. The facts are the facts. If you can disprove what I posted as fact, then post the proof. The consensus definition of terrorism on the UN Office on Drug and Crime web page fits the Macheteros like a glove.--Flybd5 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, I believe this is an editorial and style issue, not one of substance. My issue isn't whether you or I consider them terrorist. My issue is that it is a POV term, and does not belong in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Since only two of us seem to be discussing this, I will seek a third opinion. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More POV edits 

message: Allegedly to Cuba.  I hate this.  The US gov't has always claimed that anti-gov't groups to the left in it's own borders had to be somehow connected to Cuba.  They did this to the Black Panthers.  They do it with the Puerto Ricans, pro'ly cuz they don't think Puerto ricans are intellegent enough to do any militant resistance on their own.
Of course, this is meant to be a very negative inuendo, but here's a positive one that says they used the wells Fargo money to buy toys for inner-cty kids:
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=%22wells+fargo%22+macheteros+toys+children&btnG=Google+Search
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.59.143.41 (talk • contribs) 12 Dec 2005.
: The cite is unattributed, and refers to a toy giveaway for which there is no proof of the source of the money. Does this cite represent an actual story published in the media? This really needs a cite with verified info, not second hand speculation. --Flybd5 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wells Fargo Money 

message: There is a link here to a Google automated translation of a Spanish language article. I don't think that is the usual way to do things. Just mark the original with  and if someone wants to use Google (or Babelfish, or whatever turns their crank) that is their prerogative. - Jmabel | Talk 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided two links, one to the original and one to the automated translation. Someone removed the former and left the latter. --Flybd5 14:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd link 

message: This page is listed on WP:3O. Coming from there, I have the following comment: WP is guided by policies and guidelines. Remember that WP articles are based on verifiability, not truth (see WP:VERIFY) and that cited sources has to be appropriately weighted, see WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. 
For this dispute I would like to point to the guideline: Wikipedia:Words to avoid (already mentioned in this discussion). This guide includes recommendations on when it's acceptable or not to label a group or a person "terrorist", under the heading: Words with controversial or multiple meanings. Quote:
:"The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)"
:"It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are."
The guideline goes on to list examples of when and when not it is appropriate to use the word:
:Encyclopedic:
:* X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list. 
:* X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings [or "who claimed responsibility for the Z suicide bombings"], is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C [countries or bodies].
:* Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group [because...]
:Not encyclopedic: 
:* X is a terrorist group.
:* Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
:* After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.
Additional comments, based on the article and the discussion above:
* To claim that an organization is terrorist based on a UN definition, or a definition in federal or international law, may violate WP:NOR (in addition to WP:WTA). Instead, refer to cites which say so - do not make this point yourself. Linking to a source with a general "Definitions of Terrorism" usually does not qualify.
* Be careful not to give the FBI too much weight because they are a party to the conflict. But it should be included and properly cited. Contrary to what it says in the article, the current cite isn't the official FBI terrorist list, but a speech by the Director of FBI (additionally, the text mostly refers to PR groups as "separatists" or "extremists"). 
* Further, cites provided so far do not state that "the vast majority of Puerto Ricans consider Los Macheteros to be terrorists and unpatriotic" as far as I can see (from a quick read), as already noted in the discusion
* I'm unsure why David Horowitz is relevant to the article. His WP article doesn't mention PR at all, and the Google search term "David Horowitz" Boricua terrorists returns less than 50 hits. The FrontPageMag article linked to in the discussion above doesn't mention Horowitz or PR at all, or so it seems. Note that FrontPageMag might be considered a dubious (or not neutral) source by some poeple, see WP:V#Sources_of_dubious_reliability
Finally, I would like to point out that there is a number of sentences with words like supporters believe, others argue and a susbtantial percentage, which do not conform to WP:WEASEL. These claims should be reworded and properly cited.
Hope this helps. Please leave a comment if you like, and keep up the good work! -- Steve Hart 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with everything above.--Zleitzen 22:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Steve & Zleiten. I for one have no problem with anything you have said here. - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from Third Party 

message: The January 1977 bomb incident badly needs citation. I tried following it up, and what I found ("Group Says It Planted Bombs", New York Times, January 6, 1977. p. 7) is that the bombing was claimed by the "Lolita Lebron Puerto Rican Liberation Command". Lolita Lebrón would have been in prison at that time, so someone was presumably using her name as a tribute. Is there some documentation for saying that it was the Macheteros? Or is there separate documentation claiming that this attempted bombing was claimed by the Macheteros? - Jmabel | Talk 23:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 1977 bomb incident