This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Boricua Popular Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Boricua Popular Army has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 12, 2013. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Nice article; well written and comprehensive. Would like to see some citations in the table at the bottom, but otherwise have no complaints. Laïka 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that overall it is a good article, but I think the first paragraph of the Background section needs some work.
I have three major objections.
1) The citation for the paragraph, "Iriarte, Luis (2005-12-17). El combate del Asomante - 12 de agosto de 1898 (Spanish). Retrieved on 2007-06-05.", refers to a page which does not appear to contain alot of evidence which justifies the summation presented in the paragraph. In fact, none of the sentences in that first paragraph make claims easily supportable from the cited evidence.
2) The description of the battle continues past the point to which the battle is relevant to this article.
3) The final sentence of this paragraph is poorly written.
"However, the stoppage of military action by Spain on (August 12, 1898) put an end to what could potentially become a bloodbath, in an otherwise smooth military campaign that produced few casualties on the American side."
a) "potentially become a bloodbath" is not encyclopedic style. It is certainly not well understood that this battle was nearly disasterous, and if so, for whom? Total casualties from the fighting do not justify this characterization of a battle which must have been based on the sizes of the forces involved and the low casualties, very weakly pursued by either side. b) Technically, the battle ended when the participants learned of the general session of hostilities.
I generally don't understand what the relevance of this section is, and think any description of the battle would be better served by a separate entry with greater detail.
Given the lack of evidence for the writer's description of the battle provided in the citation, and the subject matter I'm inclined to think that the given account is actually based on material from the Boricua Popular Army itself - perhaps the sort of battle romanticization typical of revolutionary causes (see 'Bunker Hill' or 'Trenton' for American examples). If so, such material is still relevant to the article, but its source and potential bias should be explicitly identified. Linking to a page which gives a Spainish centered account of the battle which provides little in the way of evidence for the given partisan account of the battle isn't good enough.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 10:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
1. I checked Reference #1 and it passed as a reliable verifiable source. I did make some minor copyedits to some paragraphs
2. "With cells (usually consisting of between six and ten members) in the United States and other countries"- I Would like to see a source for this, otherwise remove.
3. In the "International terrorism laws and arguments of patriotism" section, both references #14 and #15 are "dead links" and need to be replaced.
User:You'veGotToBeKidding, I agree with the keep GA review, because these are minor issues which can be taken care of and should have been discussed in a civil manner without the bad attitude and name calling that went on. Just a reminder, you can be blocked from editing because of personal attacks. Tony the Marine ( talk) 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Area of Operation refers to "the area in which the faction operated" Template:Infobox war faction. It does *not* refer to the countries with which the organization has strong political bonds nor to countries from which it receives strong financial, military, or moral support. As such I have removed Cuba, since no citation so far, Economist or not, represents that Cuba is a country in which, like the US and Puerto Rico, Macheteros has perpetrated its bombing, etc., activities. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions just the one Hartford, CT robbery, yet it reverberates the dubious The Economist article's claim that Macheteros has cells throughout the United States. This is a monumental jump from fact to tale, and I had to disagree with the inclusion of the statement in the article. If anyone feels very strong against this, and can subtantiate it, maybe a compromise can be reached.
To illustrate: I could say that Bank of America has branches throughout the US, but would it be fair to say that Banco Popular has branches throughout the US? Maybe yes, maybe no, despite Popular having branches in NY, Fl, CA, IL, TX, and probably a few other places. But to say that Macheteros has cells THROUGHOUT the US, it's dubious to put it mildly, especially if no other locations that CT is even mentioned.
One more illustration: remember Mr. "Cuco"? The big, ugly madman hiding in the dark places adults didn't want you to go to? As a kid you believed in it and it scared the heck out of you, right? but when you grew old enough to learn the truth, that sort of stuff would no longer scare you, ok? Likewise, The Economist is also the victim of a similar scared mentality: that when an organization is seen here and seen there (Say NY and Chicago) it becomes a lot easier -- even if they don't know it for a fact -- to claim that it is everywhere -- throughout -- because they WANT to believe it is so.
Again, I think we can come to a compromise that draws it as it is, rather than use The Economist's fabulous claims. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Not so sure of the "good article" status, but perhaps Im not the one to judge it, and lately Im not surprised at all for several articles in WP (mostly articles about wars and conflicts wich claims to be neutral when they're heavily biased. Fortunately, it seems that this is not the case). Filiberto Ojeda Ríos was executed/killed-in-action by the FBI, not simply "deceased". And the image at the article is the Macheteros logo, but not its flag, wich can be seen here or here. Hope someone could upload a version of the flag to illustrate the article. Regards,-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 16:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
In the lead it features a quote from Ronald Fernandez saying FBI terrorism charges "shift the blame for any attacks on U.S. policy or personnel from us to them". I'm not totally sure who "them" is and I have no idea who "us" is. Might we instead just paraphrase what Fernandez is saying?
Any chance File:Ejercito Popular Boricua logo.jpg should be added to this article rather than deleted, now that it is not used in Filiberto Ojeda Ríos? - Jmabel | Talk 17:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not a "flag" that should be on this page, it's a logo or symbol or logos or symbols.
The 1st symbol. the machete with a star in the middle,
The 2nd symbol. the EPB symbol with a PR flag inside the letter "b"
[1]
The other sources for the machete logo / symbol:
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Boricua Popular Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Boricua Popular Army has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 12, 2013. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Nice article; well written and comprehensive. Would like to see some citations in the table at the bottom, but otherwise have no complaints. Laïka 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that overall it is a good article, but I think the first paragraph of the Background section needs some work.
I have three major objections.
1) The citation for the paragraph, "Iriarte, Luis (2005-12-17). El combate del Asomante - 12 de agosto de 1898 (Spanish). Retrieved on 2007-06-05.", refers to a page which does not appear to contain alot of evidence which justifies the summation presented in the paragraph. In fact, none of the sentences in that first paragraph make claims easily supportable from the cited evidence.
2) The description of the battle continues past the point to which the battle is relevant to this article.
3) The final sentence of this paragraph is poorly written.
"However, the stoppage of military action by Spain on (August 12, 1898) put an end to what could potentially become a bloodbath, in an otherwise smooth military campaign that produced few casualties on the American side."
a) "potentially become a bloodbath" is not encyclopedic style. It is certainly not well understood that this battle was nearly disasterous, and if so, for whom? Total casualties from the fighting do not justify this characterization of a battle which must have been based on the sizes of the forces involved and the low casualties, very weakly pursued by either side. b) Technically, the battle ended when the participants learned of the general session of hostilities.
I generally don't understand what the relevance of this section is, and think any description of the battle would be better served by a separate entry with greater detail.
Given the lack of evidence for the writer's description of the battle provided in the citation, and the subject matter I'm inclined to think that the given account is actually based on material from the Boricua Popular Army itself - perhaps the sort of battle romanticization typical of revolutionary causes (see 'Bunker Hill' or 'Trenton' for American examples). If so, such material is still relevant to the article, but its source and potential bias should be explicitly identified. Linking to a page which gives a Spainish centered account of the battle which provides little in the way of evidence for the given partisan account of the battle isn't good enough.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 10:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
1. I checked Reference #1 and it passed as a reliable verifiable source. I did make some minor copyedits to some paragraphs
2. "With cells (usually consisting of between six and ten members) in the United States and other countries"- I Would like to see a source for this, otherwise remove.
3. In the "International terrorism laws and arguments of patriotism" section, both references #14 and #15 are "dead links" and need to be replaced.
User:You'veGotToBeKidding, I agree with the keep GA review, because these are minor issues which can be taken care of and should have been discussed in a civil manner without the bad attitude and name calling that went on. Just a reminder, you can be blocked from editing because of personal attacks. Tony the Marine ( talk) 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Area of Operation refers to "the area in which the faction operated" Template:Infobox war faction. It does *not* refer to the countries with which the organization has strong political bonds nor to countries from which it receives strong financial, military, or moral support. As such I have removed Cuba, since no citation so far, Economist or not, represents that Cuba is a country in which, like the US and Puerto Rico, Macheteros has perpetrated its bombing, etc., activities. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions just the one Hartford, CT robbery, yet it reverberates the dubious The Economist article's claim that Macheteros has cells throughout the United States. This is a monumental jump from fact to tale, and I had to disagree with the inclusion of the statement in the article. If anyone feels very strong against this, and can subtantiate it, maybe a compromise can be reached.
To illustrate: I could say that Bank of America has branches throughout the US, but would it be fair to say that Banco Popular has branches throughout the US? Maybe yes, maybe no, despite Popular having branches in NY, Fl, CA, IL, TX, and probably a few other places. But to say that Macheteros has cells THROUGHOUT the US, it's dubious to put it mildly, especially if no other locations that CT is even mentioned.
One more illustration: remember Mr. "Cuco"? The big, ugly madman hiding in the dark places adults didn't want you to go to? As a kid you believed in it and it scared the heck out of you, right? but when you grew old enough to learn the truth, that sort of stuff would no longer scare you, ok? Likewise, The Economist is also the victim of a similar scared mentality: that when an organization is seen here and seen there (Say NY and Chicago) it becomes a lot easier -- even if they don't know it for a fact -- to claim that it is everywhere -- throughout -- because they WANT to believe it is so.
Again, I think we can come to a compromise that draws it as it is, rather than use The Economist's fabulous claims. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Not so sure of the "good article" status, but perhaps Im not the one to judge it, and lately Im not surprised at all for several articles in WP (mostly articles about wars and conflicts wich claims to be neutral when they're heavily biased. Fortunately, it seems that this is not the case). Filiberto Ojeda Ríos was executed/killed-in-action by the FBI, not simply "deceased". And the image at the article is the Macheteros logo, but not its flag, wich can be seen here or here. Hope someone could upload a version of the flag to illustrate the article. Regards,-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 16:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
In the lead it features a quote from Ronald Fernandez saying FBI terrorism charges "shift the blame for any attacks on U.S. policy or personnel from us to them". I'm not totally sure who "them" is and I have no idea who "us" is. Might we instead just paraphrase what Fernandez is saying?
Any chance File:Ejercito Popular Boricua logo.jpg should be added to this article rather than deleted, now that it is not used in Filiberto Ojeda Ríos? - Jmabel | Talk 17:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not a "flag" that should be on this page, it's a logo or symbol or logos or symbols.
The 1st symbol. the machete with a star in the middle,
The 2nd symbol. the EPB symbol with a PR flag inside the letter "b"
[1]
The other sources for the machete logo / symbol: