Talk:Puerto Rican Nationalist Party insurgency

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Role of Blanca Canales[edit]

What appears in the content of these articles about the Nationalists and the uprisings seems to make a very weak case for Blanca Canales to be considered "leader" of the Jayuya revolt. One article says she stored weapons at her house; another that she raised the Puerto Rican flag and declared independence. The plaque listing the names of the women in the Nationalist uprisings wasn't installed until 2007. There needs to be a cited, quoted source for this assertion. It sounds as if someone is trying to build her up, especially in going so far as to say (uncited) that she was the first woman to lead a revolt against the US. It just is not obvious from the content in these articles. Also, the NY Latino Journal cannot be considered a very substantive or Reliable Source (RS) for something as potentially controversial as this - the articles are anonymous, undated, and unsourced. Very anecdotal, no evidence of peer review.Parkwells (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overly long lists[edit]

It's very unusual to list so many people in an article, especially the table of Nationalists "still incarcerated" four years after the revolts. What is the point of it? To list it because the information is available? Was this an unusual sentence for such revolts? How long were the sentences? There sometimes seems an effort to add data just because it exists. What is the context? How many people were members of the Nationalist Party at the time? Were a high proportion of members tried and jailed?Parkwells (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image of soldiers[edit]

The file data clearly says that this is a photo of "Puerto Rican National Guard" - the correct caption should be used, not loose terms like "US troops."Parkwells (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this image. No verifiable source for the image exists, and therefore it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia for reliable sources and verifiability.
The Wikipedia Commons summary for the image says that it was uploaded from this website: https://www.latinamericanstudies.org/jayuya-revolt-1.htm, and that the original source is a Madrid newspaper called “El Imparcial”. There are a couple of different problems here. First, the website where the uploader says they got the image does not list any source whatsoever. Second, the uploader is stating that the original source was a newspaper that ceased operations nearly 20 years before the incident supposedly captured in the photograph!
However, there was a pro-independence Puerto Rican tabloid with the same name. And a couple of the other photographs on the website linked by the uploader appear in editions of this tabloid from early November 1950. However, I was not able to find an edition that included the photo in question here. I used this website (https://issuu.com/coleccionpuertorriquena/stacks/e7c512257cd8468d891e94699255413b), which has scanned editions for the tabloid for November 1950 except for Nov 2. It’s possible the photo comes from that edition, but again, I am unable to determine that.
This is sufficient for the removal of the image since a user would not be unable to verify the source. Relatedly, a user would also be unable to verify the reliability of the description given for the image, a problem that Parkwells is highlighting here. The description of the image given on the site listed above as the source of the image (“Police take down Nationalist flag in Jayuya”) is inconsistent with the description given on Wikipedia Commons (“Jayuya Uprising — removal of the Puerto Rican Flag by U.S. Military in Jayuya, Puerto Rico, during the Jayuya Uprising in 1950”). In fact, a third distinct variation (“A Puerto Rican flag removed by a member of the U.S.-backed Puerto Rico National Guard after the Jayuya Uprising in 1950.”), inconsistent with either of the two others, appears in the article itself. As explained above, there is no way to verify which, if any, of the descriptions are accurate, and so this image must go. Junniene (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Errors and holes[edit]

I've been troubled by the errors in this and related articles, as well as outright omissions - such as leaving out that five Congressmen were wounded, one seriously, during the 1954 shootings in the US Congress (rather than none); the error on the caption of the photo of troops, as the file clearly says these are "Puerto Rican National Guard". There was no recognition that Truman supported drafting of a constitution after the attempt to assassinate him, nor that the people voted nearly 82% in favor of it in 1952. That is surely also an aftermath of the 1950 revolts worth noting. Some editors are working too hard to present only one side of this story.Parkwells (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The accusations that "Some editors are working too hard to present only one side of this story" are somewhat offensive and not true. Wikipedia is not about what we like or do not like, it is about well researched facts backed up by reliable sources. This was a shameful event in our history and when I state "history", I am referring to our "US history". Our history books have often omitted such shameful events, If we are to be proud of being "Americans", we must also teach about the things that our ancestors have done to the Native Americans and African Americans. Not too long ago did we worship George Custer, when it was the Native Americans who were massacred at Wounded Knee and during the forced march in the Trail of Tears. Not too long ago the contributions which the African Americans made to our country were omitted from our history books nor the hangings that went on in the South of people whose only "sin" was that they were black. Even today, most people are unaware of the fact that in the Southwest people of Mexican descent were subject to the discriminatory acts similar to those that were enacted by the Jim Crow laws.

This article is a summary of an event which most Americans are unaware of. Ignorance is the main fuel of those who discriminate against others. The fact that Puerto Rico was and still is an American colony/territory makes it perfectly clear that our government and president were aware of what was going on and that any action committed against the people of Puerto Rico, even if it was ordered by the Government of Puerto Rico, had to be approved by the US Government. No one can do anything in your house unless you approve it. To illustrate my point, 51% of the people of Puerto Rico voted in favor of statehood for the island, yet the Governor and Resident Commissioner are in Washington, DC begging the president and Senate to approve the Puerto Rican request of statehood.

We have to present these events, which have fallen into the cracks of history only to be forgatten, as they happened in order for others to judge us by our actions. The fact that thousands of readers have read this article [1] and that only one person out of thousands is complaining clearly shows that we (the editors) have done a good job and that we are accomplishing our goal of educating others. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Parkwells, your accussations above represent an intentional violation of WP:AGF. If you are that convinced about the intentions of other editors, bad faith assumptions are not the the agreed-upon protocol at Wikipedia, instead make your accussations HERE. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

A helpful note to editors[edit]

I believe that editor Parkwells is making an earnest (though precipitous) effort at editing some of the "Puerto Rican history" pages, so I'm taking the time to provide Parkwells some context.

  1. No one is disputing that five congressmen were wounded in the 1954 shootings. In fact, the "five congressmen" have already been prominently mentioned in several Wiki articles. Parkwells simply missed them in his reading.
  2. The complaint about "outright omissions" is unfounded. The articles about Lolita Lebron and Rafael Cancel Miranda, two of the Nationalists who took part in the 1954 attack, clearly state that five congressmen were wounded. The editing history shows that this fact (the five wounded congressmen) has been included in those articles for a very long time - four years in the Lolita Lebron article, and two years in the Rafael Cancel Miranda article. So no one is disputing, omitting, or subordinating this fact.
  3. The 1952 "constitution and status referendum" was widely viewed as a farce, especially in the diplomatic community, since the referendum only offered a choice between the existing "colony" or "commonwealth." Neither independence nor statehood were on the ballot. If you ask 100 people whether they prefer to have their thumb cut off, or their pinky (but keeping their entire hand is not an option), then of course a majority will say "cut off my pinky."
  4. With the passage of P.L. 600 (Public Law 600), President Truman "permitted" Puerto Rico to vote for a "constitution" which, under the tenets of the Foraker Act, had to be approved by the U.S. Congress. This "constitution" was then presented to the U.N. Committee on De-colonialization, as proof that Puerto Ricans were a "self-governing" people. This is self-serving, transparent, and patently absurd.
  5. It is absurd because as of 1898, in 1952 (the year of the "consitutional plebiscite") and continuing to the present day, U.S. federal agencies control Puerto Rico's foreign relations, customs, immigration, postal system, radio, television, transportation, Social Security, coast guard, maritime laws, banks, currency, tariffs, tax code, and defense. In addition, the Pentagon controls 9% of Puerto Rico's land and has four atomic missile bases on the island.
  6. The captioning of the National Guard photo provides us with a "teachable moment." As we all know, Puerto Rico does not (and did not) have a standing army, because U.S. law does not permit it. Now look at the photo. Carefully. The National Guardsmen are wearing U.S. World War II helmets and uniforms. They are carrying U.S.-issued weaponry since, again, Puerto Ricans did not have the right to produce and bear arms. These National Guardsmen were dispatched from Camp Buchanan and Fort Santiago, the two U.S. Army/Marine bases on the island. In other words, these National Guardsmen were clothed, armed, organized, bivouacked, deployed, and commanded by the U.S. military.
  7. The P-47 Thunderbolt aircraft which bombed and machine-gunned the residents of Jayuya were U.S. aircraft, using U.S. ordnance, and scrambled from the Ramey Air Base of the U.S. Air Force. This was an extraordinary historical moment, when the U.S. bombed its own citizens.
  8. Now return to the photo. It is extremely historically reductive, bordering on deceptive, to caption it as "Puerto Rican National Guard arrive to quell the Puerto Rican uprising." That's as logical as saying "Rin Tin Tin arrives, to eat his own tail." That is why in one article, due to editor Parkwell's (and thus far, only editor Parkwell's) concern, I captioned the photo as "National Guard arrive" -- i.e., as neutral a caption as possible. I recommend that the photo be treated this way (neutrally) in other articles as well.
  9. The "teachable moment" of this photo is that there is a substantial history behind it, and behind all the linked articles. Any wholesale "editing" should be done with at least a minimal knowledge of U.S.-Puerto Rican history, and the available historical sources. Here are some of those sources:
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

This list is not exhaustive. Several of the above sources were cited in a number of the Puerto Rican history articles. I encourage any editor, particularly those who are not familiar with Puerto Rican history, to consult these sources before imposing major changes on articles that have been written collaboratively, by dozens of editors, over a period of several years.

Finally, Tony the Marine made an excellent point. This article was visited approximately 5,000 times over the past 5 months, without major complaints or revisions. Over the past few days, one person (of the 5,000 who visited) is expressing his dissent. This lone dissent (1 out of 5,000) is part of the current editorial context. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this article[edit]

This article has a lot wrong with it. The fact that it uses a terrorist attack infobox can be easily fixed by replacing it with a military conflict box (in what way can a failed armed uprising be described as a terrorist attack, unless you intend to say that the Pueto Rican nationalists were all terrorists?). Obviously the Puerto Rican nationalist did also carry out terrorist attacks (how else can you describe the attack on the House of Representatives?) but the 1950 uprisings were not terrorist attacks because both sides engaged in fighting. However, other problems include:

1) Way too much background - this should be shortened. At the moment it is unclear where in the article the actual uprising starts.

2) Way to much description of the aftermath. As far as I can work out, all the uprisings occurred in 1950, with only terrorist attacks like the attack on the House of Representatives happening after. Really the focus of this article should be placed on the events of 1950.

3) Who led the nationalists? It really isn't clear from this article.

4) The piece is by no means NPOV, but instead makes mendacious, unsubstantiated claims such as nationalists being 'machine gunned' 'all over the island'. FOARP (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest and concern are appreciated - but these are not "claims," they are not "unsubstantiated," and they're certainly not "mendacious." Please read the article carefully. Feel free to consult the extensive READING LIST that was provided for you on this Talk Page. It will improve your understanding. If you are shocked about the "machine-gunning" of innocent people, please read the Ponce Massacre article in this Wikipedia. It will also improve your understanding.
Regarding "excessive" background and aftermath in this article, you may wish to review the American Revolution article in this Wikipedia. It contains over FIFTEEN TIMES (1,500%) the amount of background and aftermath that are contained in this article. Surely, you are not suggesting a historical double standard.
Thank you, Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gen. Edwin L. Sibert the top military commander, during the October 1950 revolution[edit]

In October-November 1950, during the Nationalist revolution, every U.S. military unit including the National Guard reported to U.S. Brigadier General Edwin L. Sibert.

This includes Luis R. Esteves, C.O. of the National Guard on the island -- Esteves also reported to, and took his orders from, Gen. Sibert.

The most complete account of this (including Gov. Munoz Marin phoning Gen. Sibert for more troops and more arrests of Puerto Ricans) may be found in: Marisa Rosado, Pedro Albizu Campos: Las Llamas de la Aurora, San Juan, PR: Ediciones Puerto, 5th Ed., 2008, p. 353. Sarason (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, since I don't have this particular book, did Gov. Munoz Marin simply say to Gen. Sibert that "I want you to arrest more Puerto Ricans!", or was he perhaps just a touch more specific about who he wanted arrested? The reason I am curious is that out of a population of 2.2 million only 106 engaged in this uprising. Are you arguing that he wanted indiscriminant arrests? And if so, how many? Hammersbach (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puerto_Rican_Nationalist_Party_insurgency&oldid=1200174248"