Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:27, 23 October 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Puerto Rico High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] African diaspora Top‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Afro-Puerto Rican

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

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 Misplaced Pages, 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

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???

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

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

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

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)

Unbalanced/stick to topic

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.

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. 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.

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.” He said, if “any South American country misbehaves it should be spanked.”"

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)

This is hagiography, not biography

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

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

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

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)

Protected

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)

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)

Page unprotection

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Too short paragraphs

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.

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.

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

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

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.>> 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Rhoads investigation

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)

Later years

• 1)Content says "It has been alleged that Albizu Campos was amongst the subjects of that experimentation." 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." 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)

Puerto Rican Nationalist Party

"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)

• Phrase removed. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

US Expansion in Latin America

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

• Redundant sentence removed. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

1. ^ Rich Cohen; The Fish That Ate the Whale; New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2012; pp. 14-67 Cite error: The named reference "autogenerated3" was 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

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Puerto Rico articles
• High-importance Puerto Rico articles
• B-Class Puerto Rico articles of High-importance
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class African diaspora articles
• Top-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles