Talk:Museo de la Masacre de Ponce

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Puerto Rico Mid‑importance

	Puerto Rico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

encyclopedic tone

I just tagged one section with "POV" tag that displays the "neutrality of this article is disputed". I don't want to have any big dispute here, but i am concerned that an encyclopedic tone should be maintained. Currently, there are sentences with some strong language (e.g. labelling some actions "murders") that are presented as facts. I am not disputing whether the actions should be condemned or not, but I think the condemnation should be presented using some other authority. So I would prefer that such a statement should be replaced by a verbatim quote, with quote marks and footnote, from some other party characterizing the actions that way. doncram (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don,

murder is mentioned twice in the section, which one do you object to, the 1st, the 2nd, or both?
can you clarify what you mean by "some other authority" another citation, another author, another document? or something else?. If you say which authority again you prefer NOT used, that will help.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i question the use of the word "murder" in both cases. The term may in fact be justified, but it is a subjective judgment that the killings were "murders", which connotes illegality and intent. I note that the article Río Piedras massacre to which the word "murders" is linked uses just the term "killings" and not "murders". If "murder" is to be used I would prefer for that use of the word to be specifically cited to a source. By some other authority, what i meant is some source, any source, using the word "murder" rather than it being just our own authority as wikipedia editors who choose to characterize it that way. doncram (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, no problem - hang in there. Mercy11 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a follow up, the citations have been supplied. And yes, the RP Massacre should also be changed to reflect they are known as murders. I agree. Let me know if there is anything else you object to or want. Thanks for noticing the need for quotes. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving that. I just revisited the article and marked "citation needed" in several places. Basically in wikipedia articles like this, at least those being improved towards featured quality, there should be at least one citation per paragraph (besides in the summary lede), appearing at the end of the paragraph, as well as any additional citations within the paragraph needed to support any other assertions. Also, about the POVness, I think the assertion that the government engaged "in an open campaign of harassment and persecution against the Nationalist Party and its leadership" is subjective and should be directly quoted as well, and also the assertion that the date was one of the "saddest" in PR history. Again, I basically believe the information in this article but think that subjective statements are allowable as quotes but should not be written by us as wikipedia editors. I'll watch this article and will see any further updates you make. Thanks! doncram (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that the American military government in Puerto Rico in place at the time engaged "in an open campaign of harassment and persecution against the Nationalist Party and its leadership" is entered in quotes as desired. The assertion that the date was "one of the saddest" in Puerto Rican struggle for independence is also entered in quotes as requested. Anything else, just say the word. Yeah, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get this one to the level of Casa Paoli, hum? Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There remain a couple glitches which could easily be corrected:

Missing closing quote marks on he engaged in "an open struggle against the Nationalist Party and a direct persecution of its leadership.[5]

The following quote is ungrammatical so I wonder if there is a typo in the copying of it (should it be "on February 23" rather than "in"?): "The Nationalists responded by killing the State Chief of Police, Colonel Francis Riggs, in February 23, 1936".[7]

doncram (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet 1: fixed - closing double quotes supplied.
Bullet 2: That's how it's in the original. Most likely an unintended typo since "i" and "o" are next to each other on keyboard. Provided notation to satisfy problem. If you have another idea or more objections or find more problems, just say the word. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the changes. I don't have anything more to address right now, so removed the POV tag i had added. I will say in general that the article does seem a bit one-sided, reflecting sources however. It would be interesting to see some presentation of opposing viewpoints. I wonder if the NRHP application document would reflect any differing views or not. Again, thanks. doncram (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "opposing viewpoints". The article is about a museum, let's not forget. The points of view thing would belong on an article about Blanton Winship, don't you think?
And what do you mean "one-sided". Please elaborate a bit and I will see if I can help further.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]