Talk:Gag Law (Puerto Rico)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Too much unrelated material

The entire history of Puerto Rico is not appropriate to include as background to this act. Each of these related articles repeats the same information, from the same few sources, mostly anecdotal websites. This approach really weakens the case the editors are apparently trying to make and certainly throws the articles: one about a 1948 law, at least two biographies, etc. way off balance and making them extremely POV. Get back to the point, summarize the background, do not list every killing going back decades, use reliable sources - look further for sources.Parkwells (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

There is a disturbingly reductive (and patronizing) pattern to the above Talk entry, and to the editing of this article which occurred over a few minutes on December 7, 2012. The "entire history" of Puerto Rico was not included in this article, since that history entails centuries, millenia, eons, as does the history of any other location on this planet. The history which does have bearing, and which was included, was the relation of Puerto Rico to the United States since 1898. This history has a great deal to do with the origin, intent, administration, and consequences of Gag Law 53.

Please look at the Wikipedia articles American Revolution and Boston Tea Party. Those articles contain massive contextual information. Both articles had to be locked, due to assaults on that information. That same assault occurred to this article on December 7, 2012.

Here is one example...until this article was eviscerated on December 7, Pedro Albizu Campos (leader of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, and a central figure in the Gag Law 53 history) was introduced, contextualized, and the Wiki Link for Campos was provided. Now Albizu Campos appears out of nowhere, and his role is blurred beyond recognition.

Just look at the editing history - the work of 19 editors over the period of a full year, was hacked by one editor on December 7, 2012, in a matter of minutes. This was done just seven minutes after the above Talk entry...with no prior dialogue with other editors, no prior consensus. This is not the way to edit. This is why American Revolution, Boston Tea Party and many other articles, had to be locked.

This is tendentious editing, and it should not continue. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies; you are right and I am guilty of a fit of frustrated editing overload. I kept reading the same language and paragraphs from article to article. I am replacing content and cites, but still believe that the historical section should be written in a summary fashion for this article, rather than repeating word for word, paragraph by paragraph, what is in several other articles dealing with related subjects in Puerto Rico, which themselves deal with those topics (the massacres, demonstrations) at length. Similarly, the "See also" section should not run to tens of entries over two centuries. That is not the point of it.Parkwells (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

But, speaking of context, all the articles had the same indirect approach to the Gag Law - something like, "it was introduced to the Senate." By whom? which party? It just arises out of thin air, but violent incidents of the mid-1930s are covered in detail. I assume the PPD, which controlled the legislature and in whose interest it was to suppress the Nationalists and other independence supporters, wrote and introduced it, but why be so coy? That's the background that's missing, especially in this article. What were the electoral results between the PPD and other parties, in terms of numbers and seats, through the 1930s and 1940s elections? Why was the PPD successful in elections? How were people voting? There is emphasis on the outrages, but not on what else was happening. Please give me another chance.Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone is allowed to edit the articles, and a substantial number of Parkwells' edits are well sourced. But yes, many editors, including myself, have spent countless hours over many *years* improving the articles alluded to here. So I can see why Nelsondenis248 would take exception to edits that, in a matter of minutes, remove large chunks of well-sourced information. The actions seem to be controversial for various editors. Personally I appreciate the fact that Parkwells has placed explanatory summary edits in (it seems) all his edits, and also the fact the he stated apologies seem to indicate to me he intends to be a fair player in the articles. One note, the historical information in these articles serves to set the stage and context for the articles. I don't mean to get into the nitty-gritty here, but things such as a Why was the PPD successful in elections? How were people voting? etc, are best discussed in Elections in Puerto Rico, List of political parties in Puerto Rico, Politics of Puerto Rico, etc., which I am adding to the see also section. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• The historical "preludes" and "aftermaths" in articles of this sort are important to the development and understanding of each of the Nationalist articles. In history we need to know how we got there, what led to certain actions and what were or have been the consequence. It is true that some paragraphs are used in various articles. "Mia culpa", I am to blame since I wrote the articles in which they are repeated. In other words, I have repeated paragraphs which I created and wrote in various of the articles which I also created because I believe that they are necessary in the development of each of the articles. Maybe I do not make any sense, but I just want to point out that at least plagiarism is not the case here. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I wasn't trying to imply plagiarism, just that as I came new to the articles, it seemed that they should be somewhat varied to stress the main topic. Yes, the history of events has affected numerous developments. Perhaps I can add a different perspective that will be helpful to you, as at bottom (and top), that's my goal, to be helpful to the article. My comment about the elections was because there seems to be considerable interest in the Nationalists and their activities, but less to explain why the PPD was getting votes. Will do some more reading, and also make more repairs here. Had to go out for a while. Thanks -Parkwells (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Considering how strongly editors feel about this issue, which is written about at length, appears in more than one article, and obviously was controversial in the island's history, the sources need improvement. Specifically, the following probably do not meet the criteria for Reliable Source (RS), as they are not published in mainstream publications, show no signs of peer review, and are often anonymous, undated and unfootnoted:

• the webpage "History of Puerto Rico", an unfootnoted timeline with no sources; on the Welcome to Puerto Rico website;
• "El Grito de Lares," an undated, anonymous article that is concerned mostly with another topic, published online in New York Latino Journal; and
• a resolution passed by the PR legislature in 2006 to honor the birthday of Leopoldo Figueroa - not the best source for substantiating his legal activities and Supreme Court challenge.
• Write to Fight is a blog that is not affiliated with any mainstream publication and does not appear to be under peer review. It does not qualify as RS.

Similarly, some editors do not appear to use sources carefully:

• a website cited for Matos Paoli did not include the content that was in this article, so that has been deleted (re: police invading his home and arresting him because of a flag and four speeches) -"Francisco Matos Paoli, poeta", Proyecto Salon Hogar, Biblioteca General
• Incidental biography accompanying a photo of Viscal;"Viscal Family", Primus Host. This is a dead link so can neither be read nor verified.
• an undated, anonymous brief on "Isabel Rosado Morales", at the Peace Host website,"Isabel Rosado Morales", Peace Host, one of what are apparently a series of bios about Puerto Rican leaders. These bios have no sources or footnotes given.; and
• a blog entry about a gunfight between police and Albizu Campos' barber, "The Nationalist Insurrection of 1950", Write to Fight. (This blog does not meet criteria of RS.)

I don't doubt that the events happened, but for the article to be good, they have to be better documented.Parkwells (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship issue

It appears the one POV is that "the United States imposed US citizenship (Puerto Ricans did not ask for it nor had a say in the matter)", which was recently added back to this article and appears/did appear in many others related to the Nationalist Party. As it is unsourced, it can be deleted. In addition, Luis Munoz Rivera, the Resident Commissioner who lobbied in Washington, DC on behalf of the island, was on record as supporting citizenship for its people and made several strong speeches about it in the US Congress. (A sourced statement.) He was unlikely to be operating only on his own, and not representing anyone else. Not everyone may have agreed, but 1) an RS is needed to support the statement, and 2)more points of view need to be acknowledged in this and other articles.Parkwells (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• It does not matter if LMR supported the idea or not. They had no say on the issue. Lets face the facts that most Puerto Ricans did not want it and lets stop insinuating that the US "granted" US citienship on Puerto Ricans. "Granted" is when you ask for something, like a "wish" and it is given to you. Puerto Ricans did not have a say in the matter. Did they go to the polls and vite for it? I don't think so. It was imposed upon them, unless you prove that the people of Puerto Rico (not brown nosers) requsted US citizenship. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If this was the case, there must be a source for your position, so add it. "Imposed citizenship" is a POV and needs a source, not your opinion. The documented fact is that LMR, a major political leader of Puerto Rico, supported gaining citizenship. Such people seldom act alone.Parkwells (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Reversion

I spent considerable effort to fill out urls: provide authors, titles and dates when missing; improve writing; and check sources to see if they supported content, and making changes if they did not. All of these changes were reverted, with no discussion on the Talk page, in favor of material that is inaccurate and POV.

As an example is this content: "Francisco Matos Paoli was a poet and member of the Nationalist Party. On November 2, 1950, the police invaded his home in Río Piedras and searched for guns and explosives. They found only a Puerto Rican flag. Because of Law 53 (the Gag Law), they were "authorized" to arrest and accuse him of treason against the United States. The evidence used against him was the Puerto Rican flag in his home, and four speeches he had made in favor of Puerto Rican independence." Nearly the only part of that in the cited source is that he was a poet and Nationalist, who was arrested and imprisoned for his activities. The "invasion, flag and speeches" come from either another source that the editor has not decided to give, or from his imagination. It weakens the worth of the article not to support content by cites.Parkwells (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The "aggrieved" party

Parkwells, I continue to assume that you mean well, but please do not cast yourself in the role of an "aggrieved party."

I am not an aggrieved party, but in editor's desire to revert, you are missing contributions that improve the article.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to previous well-directed comments, I tried to be very specific on this Talk Page and in editorial comments. Much of your comments below were posted on another Talk Page, rather than in response to my specific comments above.Parkwells (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Over the past month, you have persisted in massively editing dozens of articles relating to Puerto Rican history, with absolutely no prior talk discussion. After making these edits, you then add ex post facto and generic complaints. With each passing day, it looks more and more like passive aggressive editing.

You seem to believe that your editing time is more valuable than the dozens of editors who spent hundreds of hours in creating these articles. On multiple talk pages, I have left extensive notes and historical references for you, but you don't seem to have read them. Consequently an entire group of editors has been forced to review and re-review and re-re-review the messes you have made.

So here we go again, on this page. The following is a partial list of your unfounded complaints on this and other pages, based on your own lack of historical knowledge in this area. For your benefit (yet again) I am covering some of these points, and providing you historical reference works so that you may understand what you are massively editing.

Ideas of messes can be different. I have pointed out specific problems with the cites in this article, for instance, and comparisons between what was contained in sources and what editors wrote on the page, not "generic complaints." I made a number of specific corrections to add authors, titles, etc. to citations, which reversions have removed.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of editors who have spent hundreds of hours on these articles, I urge you to read at least some of these works.

For the sake of other readers who do not have your depth of experience, you might try to read these article objectively and see if they hold together. And if the works you list are important, then cite them rather than casual, anonymous, undated articles on websites like Welcome to Puerto Rico and NY Latino Journal. That is what I suggested.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

1. U.S. citizenship was indeed imposed in 1917, so that Puerto Ricans could be conscripted into the U.S. military for W.W.I. In 1914, the entire Puerto Rican House of Delegates (it was a unicameral legislature at that point) demanded independence from the U.S. Instead, the U.S. imposed the Jones Act of 1917, which mandated U.S. citizenship, over the unanimous objection of the entire Puerto Rican House of Delegates. Every legislator, every elected official in Puerto Rico, voted against the 1917 Jones Act and the imposition of citizenship. The entire Puerto Rican legislature voted against the Jones Act. Yet the U.S ignored them, and imposed it anyway.

Since it appears there are sources that document this, it would be useful to include here, since the opposition is not stated in the content of this article, and others in which the issue of citizenship is included. Otherwise many of your readers will not know about the opposition of the Puerto Rican leaders to this act, if they are not already familiar with Puerto Rican history.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

2. No one has disputed that five congressmen were wounded in the 1954 shootings in Washington D.C. In fact, the "five congressmen" have already been prominently mentioned in several Wiki articles. Parkwells simply missed them in his reading.

I did not miss them; they were not included in some articles, including this one. I added the wounded to this one and others.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

3. Parkwells' 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.

Yes, but the event of the shooting was repeated in several other articles, in which in some cases, the number of wounded was omitted.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

4. 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."

Then provide a cited source that says that. It is obvious you have a point of view you want to present, but it still needs to be documented.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

5. 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-colonization, as proof that Puerto Ricans were a "self-governing" people. This is self-serving, transparent, and patently absurd.

It would be useful for editors to present documented and cited data that demonstrates the qualification of the fact of the vote for the constitution. Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

6. 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.

7. It is equally absurd to suggest that Francisco Matos Paoli was arrested on "general principle," for just "being" a Nationalist. In courts of law and in the international press, you cannot level these generic charges without incurring a major backlash. FBI and police do not arrest you for "being" black, "being" gay, or "being" a Nationalist (even when it is the underlying reason). They always assert a rationale.

I was not suggesting that was why he was arrested; my point was that 'the cited source did not contain the information as it reads in the article. It means that some editor did not note where the information came from. Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

8. Here are some historical sources, which I already listed on several other Talk Pages, for the benfefit of Parkwells and other editors:

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, look at the history of this article (Puerto Rico's Gag Law). It was visited approximately 6,000 times over the past year, with no major complaints or revisions. Over the past few days, one person (of the 6,000 who visited) is expressing their dissent. This lone dissent (1 out of 6,000) is part of the current editorial context.

I, and many other editors, encourage Parkwells to inform his/herself of the factual history in these articles, before editing them so aggressivley. These many editors are the aggrieved individuals, Parkwells. Not you. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the list of RS/substantial sources. That's not the point. The issue I noted on this Talk page was that many of the actual cites used in this article come from other sources, many of which probably would not qualify as RS, or that do not contain the content as noted in the article. The fact that other editors do not pay attention to the use of citations and sources does not disqualify my observations as noted above. It is not a matter of opinion or dissent from the point of view you are trying to present. I gave you specific data, which you have tried to disqualify. If the above academic works had been cited rather than "Welcome to Puerto Rico", "NY Latino Journal", etc. I would not have commented on the issue.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nelsondenis248, your additions and cites to RS about the vote for independence in 1914, the opposition to citizenship, and others have improved the article, even if you didn't think they were needed.Parkwells (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Additions to Puerto Rico article

I added your statements today about the 1914 vote for independence, and opposition of leaders to the 1917 citizenship and act. Will go back and pick up your cites. Parkwells (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Double standard of editing

I find it odd, Parkwells, that within the past 24 hours you made seven edits which added significant amounts of unsourced factual information to the Charles Herbert Allen article. That article had no citations and, after your seven edits, it still has no citations.

The entire article is completely unsourced.

It also shows no concern about this on the article's talk page, from you or anyone. In fact, the Charles Herbert Allen talk page is empty as of 12/25/2012.

This article (Puerto Rico's Gag Law) had 39 citations before you ever interacted with it. Yet you quarrel with this article. The double standard is glaringly evident. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Why such a long list in the See also section?

What's the reasoning behind such a long list under the See also section? Much of this is already covered within {{PRIndependence}} (which should definetly be used on this article). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

To whom it may concern. Please do not rename an article without consulting it first in the article "talk page". That is the way we do things here in Wikipedia. According to my understanding the proper title is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" because it was "Puerto Rico's", while many other countries had their own gag laws. I have never heard nor anyone else of "Puerto Rico Gag Law", that title does not make any sense in my book. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tony, you just broke the article's history by abusing your administrator's privileges. All diff's are now lost. You are not supposed to revert a redirect as an administrator without previous discussion. That's what WP:RFD is for. Editors, whoever they are, are allowed to move pages should they see fit per WP:BEBOLD. You were supposed to WP:AGF, post on this talk page to discuss the move, or open an WP:RFD. You deleted the original page, copied its content, lost its history, and manually copied the content back into the redirect. Not only that, but you also reverted several edits made to improve the article which are now lost due to your manual restore. I'm taking this to WP:ANI as this is an abuse on your administrator's privileges. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This whole situation could have been avoided if you would have discussed your intentions. Being "Bold" does not give you the right to rename articles and in some cases to remove content just because you feel like it. When you did not create an article nor contributed significantly to it, you should at least discuss your intentions in the articles "talk pages" as you did in the talk page of the "List of Puerto Ricans" so that those who have spent hours upon hours working on them will be given an opportunity to express themselves. I do not appreciate your accusation that I have "abused my administrator's privileges". I truly believed that there was an existence of mutual communication between us. It is not the first time that I have been wrong. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No Tony, WP:BEBOLD gives me the whole right to redirect, remove content, or add content to an article regardless of wether I have contributed to it before or not. It seems you are getting attached to articles which is contrary to our policy on WP:OWN. Make sure that you read that policy and understand it. Here are a few excerpts for your convenience:

No one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you can not prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their efforts without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page.

It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about – perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it's just your hobby. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it.

Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written.

Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

And the most important excerpt that covers this whole thing:

[Examples of ownership behavior:] "This edit wasn't discussed first."

As you can see all my edits were made in good faith and within Wikipedia's framework of WP:BEBOLD but it was you, with your personal attachment to this article, that spiraled this whole thing.

Furthermore, as an administrator you are not supposed to use your privileges to revert something that is not vandalism. Next time simply engage in a discussion at the talk page rather than using your administrator privileges.

If there was a mutual communication between us then why did you use your administrator privileges to revert it rather than discuss it in the article? This whole issue could have been avoided if you had not used your administrator privileges. For example, you reverted a change I made in List of Puerto Ricans but you did that as an editor, so I left it there and didn't revert you back. But in this article you overstepped by using your administrator privileges. You have been an administrator for 7 years, your actions were inexcusable.

It is easier to blame others rather than ourselves, but Tony, I implore you to please reexamine what happened here and what truly led to this fiasco.

You know that I respect you and even admire you (semper fi Marine) but you left me no choice. I would like to keep our friendship intact since we both work towards the same goal and for the same reasons but when you overstep with your administrator privileges without engaging in discussions first, that's a whole different story.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have been here atound long enougth to know the rules and "ANI" did not agree that I abused my administrator's privileges. But, you know what Ahnoneemoos? You are right, we have to continue to work together for a common good and what the heck, it is a New Year so, let's let bygones be bygones and put this whole thing behind us. En la union esta la fuerza. A house divded can not stand on its own. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gag Law (Puerto Rico). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927122154/http://www.oslpr.org/files/docs/%7BD9C45AFF-536D-4306-BC4B-213A816108A8%7D.pdf to http://www.oslpr.org/files/docs/%7BD9C45AFF-536D-4306-BC4B-213A816108A8%7D.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)