Talk:Pedro Albizu Campos

message: 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)
thread_title:  Afro-Puerto Rican 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don Pedro's Racial Ancestry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Free Mason as a religion??? 

message: Pages such as this one are self-published conjecture and are not reliable. Andrevan@ 05:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree; delete.Parkwells (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vazquez source not reliable 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article is unbalanced

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Use of names

message: 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.Rich Cohen; The Fish That Ate the Whale; New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2012; pp. 14-67
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.Rich Cohen; The Fish That Ate the Whale; pub. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2012; pp. 146-150 By 1940, in Honduras alone, the United Fruit Company owned 50 percent of all private land in the entire country. 
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.Rich Cohen; The Fish That Ate the Whale; pub. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2012; p. 174
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.”Perkins, Dexter (1937), The Monroe Doctrine, 1867-1907, Baltimore Press;  p. 333 He said, if “any South American country misbehaves it should be spanked.”Roosevelt, Theodore (1913), Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography, The Macmillion Press Company; p. 172"
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)
thread_title: Unbalanced/stick to topic

message: 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)
thread_title: This is hagiography, not biography

message: 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)
thread_title: This is BIOGRAPHY

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Massive editing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Exportation of edit warring onto this page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think it's reasonable not to use a non-standard abbreviation. Andrevan@ 16:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Too short paragraphs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rhoads investigation

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think you are right. Andrevan@ 16:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Later years

message: "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)
thread_title: Puerto Rican Nationalist Party

message: Note duplicate sentences: in next to last paragraph is: The U.S. government supported these economic exploits, and provided military "persuasion" whenever necessary.[20]
*Redundant sentence removed. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: US Expansion in Latin America

message: 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)
thread_title: Historical context

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Andrevan, if its only a couple of paragraphs, I may be able to help. Mercy11 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish language sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks - definitely an interesting man and family (and steam engine!)Parkwells (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Material on Charles Allen

message: 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)
thread_title: Support for Albizu Campos' strategy 

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

message: * 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)
thread_title: Remove it

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Concur, it's a simple correction. Hammersbach (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I would agree that it's not notable enough to place in the lead. Hammersbach (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founded the Knights of Columbus?  I don't think so!