Talk:Ramón Emeterio Betances

GA hold

This article is much better than when I read it last. There are a just a few things that need fixing before it can become GA:

• The lead needs to be expanded; it is far too short for an article of this size. The lead is supposed to be a standalone summary of the article that alludes to all of the major sections of the article. See WP:LEAD (please read carefully).
• I added a few fact tags to information that needs to be sourced.

• Sourced

• There are some odd characters at the top of the "Ten Commandments" box.

• Deleted them

• The "For other countries" subsection is too small. Could these two sentences be integrated into an existing subsection?

• Fused it with the section above, please see if that current location is ok for GA standards

• This is fine, but the wording of the heading is a bit awkward now. How about "Dominican Republic" for the first one and "Cuba and elsewhere" for the second? Awadewit | talk 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I left the first one as "For Dominican Republic" and tweaked the second one to "For Cuba and elsewhere", does this resolve the awkwardness of the title of should we remove the "For" part?

• Looks fine to me. Awadewit | talk 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• he responded, highly frustrated, with a phrase that has become famous since (and perceived by many as a rhetorical question, yet to be answered to this day) - This looks POV, particularly because the sentence does not identify the "many" or, indeed, anyone who has made this statement.

I quoted a t-shirt on the footnotes, would that imply "many", meaning the T-shirt wearers? <:o)X*** Demf 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the matherial between the parenthesis

• The "legacy" section, with the large quote box and the plaque, looks overcrowded. Might you rearrange it a bit?

• Moved table down a few paragraphs

• Some literature purists do not acknowledge Betances writings as Puerto Rican literature, in part because most of it was written in French, and physically away from Puerto Rico. - "literature purists" is an awkward phrase - who are these critics, anyway?

• I rewrote the sentence, the source for the statement is ref [104]

• I see the footnote. As I cannot understand the recording, it would be nice to know who is making the "is not Puerto Rican literature claim" and who is making the "is Puerto Rican literature" claim. Awadewit | talk 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the entire line, I browsed trough the web and couldn't find any reliable source arguing if his work is Puerto Rican or not, so I assume this was a bit of OR someone added there

I was quoting the lit professor who did the podcast on Betances as a writer. I guess I know where he was coming from. Betances lived far more time outside of Puerto Rico than in it, and his works were suppressed for a long while due to political reasons in a university or two. Everyone thinks of him as a doctor and a political reader, yet only few people give him credit as a writer. To make matters worse, most of his writings are in French. Therefore, a colleague or two of the professor may allegue that Betances is not a Puerto Rican writer... which to me is nonsense. But, then again, omitting the fact doesn't hurt if the person reading it didn't know about the objections in the first place... Demf 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Other suggestions:

• A few more images might brighten up the long swaths of text.

• Uploaded another image. I also moved some images to the Wikimedia Commons.

• It is probably a good idea to move all images to the commons that can be moved there. If you take this article to FAC, that could arise as an issue. I had someone oppose an article I edited simply because the images weren't on the commons. *sigh* Awadewit | talk 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• :-) Moving all images to Commons. --Boricuaeddie 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

All images uploaded to Commons

• While the article is within the 6,000 to 10,000 word limit, it is approaching 10,000 words. You might think about trying to cut the article. I don't mind long articles, but many editors do.

• Article is exactly 9,731 words long (excluding References, Notes, See also, and External Links sections)

• Oh yes, I know. I counted. :) What I was trying to convey was that the article was on the long side of the allowable limits. From experience, I can tell you that some editors will be opposed to such a long article, although it is within the word count. I simply thought that you should be aware of this and consider deleting some material, however painful that might be. Awadewit | talk 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have any questions about this review, let me know; otherwise, drop me a line at my talk page when you want me to re-review it. Awadewit | talk 13:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will attend these points, please note that my comments here will be written in Bold Blue, thanks for reviewing. -凶 16:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by me will be in green. --Boricuaeddie 17:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am passing this for GA, but I still think that the lead could be expanded. Awadewit | talk 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course! Thank you for your work. --Boricuaeddie 00:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My congratulations to all users who contributed to this article, especially User:Demf who provided the great bulk of information, and to users 凶 and Boricuaeddie. I'm listing it to Peer Review to see if we can get it featured. It has potential, and all we need is third-party advice. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations to all of the contributors. You guys did a hell of a job. Tony the Marine 03:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent contributions on the Puerto Rican patriot Ramón Emeterio Betances page. Congratulations to all who worked so hard on this page, which is a featured article today on Wikipedia. --vertical 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye, thanks all of you, genuinely interesting featured article instead of some of the rubbish that's been chosen. --MacRusgail 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tapadh leibh! Demf 04:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Birth flag in infobox.

I'm hesitant to change an FA... but according to Flag of Puerto Rico, the modern flag came into being only six years before Betances's death, and more importantly, Puerto Rico wasn't independent. Shouldn't the Spanish flag be used for his birth? SnowFire 02:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• On October 25, 2006, the Puerto Rican State Department declared the existence of the Puerto Rican nationality (see: Juan Mari Bras). Puerto Rican nationality was recognized in 1898 after Spain ceded the island to the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War. In 1917, the United States imposed Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship without the consent of the people of Puerto Rico and without the requirement that the islanders renounce their PR citizenship. Since then, everyone born in Puerto Rico are both Puerto Rican and U.S. citizens. In other words, Betances was a Puerto Rican citizen since 1898 and therefore, his flag was the Puerto Rican flag. Tony the Marine 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Um. Your statements, unless I'm missing something here, seem irrelevant to the point. As I noted above, I'm talking about the birth location, not what citizenship he may or may not have had at the end of his life (Also, note: The Puerto Rican citizenship article seems to have been deleted, so I'm going to assume that this is not a major theory anyway). I think it's fairly clear that Betances was *born* under Spanish rule, but I didn't want to step on the toes of some compromise brokered before, or if there was some dispute about the status of the islands then. For instance, people like George Washington or Mohandas Ghandi were clearly born British citizens in British territory. SnowFire 07:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think putting a Spanish flag there, while perhaps correct, would probably serve to inflame PR nationalists too much to be practical. 72.64.165.157 07:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a Taino flag? Agueybaná sure has bragging rights over Ferdinand and Isabella, if we're to ensure proper geographical credit... <:o)X*** Demf 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured article of the day

Gente, I feel like the guy in that Heinz ketchup article who opened the bottle upstairs in some college football field, went to get a hamburger, and placed it underneath the dropping ketchup to impress a girl... "Good things come to those who wait..."

Sure, it had the wrong prepositions here and there, yes, it was vandalized about a dozen times, but the Betances article made it to FA of The Day for today, September 23, 2007 (AST). Guess there aren't too many Puerto Rican FAotD's (and Tony The Marine probably authored all of them!) This article not only becomes the first Puerto Rican bio article to make it to the Main Page, but also becomes the first FA for the Wikipedia Freemasonry project... and Betances made it earlier than notable freemasons such as Simón Bolívar or half of the American Founding Fathers, George Washington included. Part of it became a stub for the Indonesian and Russian editions...

And, of course, it makes the front page on the 139th anniversary of the Grito de Lares. Didn't make it to GA status on April 6 (it would have made more sense back then), but well worth the wait.

Of course, my hats off to Tony for suggesting this to take precedence over his original Puerto Ricans in WWII FAotD request. What a gentleman... My congrats to everyone who helped the doctor make the headlines. If it wasn't for him, none of us would be here... QVPRL... Demf 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Aguas de libertad" section

I find the following phrase very confusing "Since buying the freedom of slave children cost 25 pesos if the child was a slave, and 50 pesos if the child had been freed", because if the child's freedom is to be bought for 25 pesos, how can one buy the freedom of one that is already free for a larger ammount? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.234.223 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It meant 50 pesos if the child had been baptized, 25 if he had not. 70.45.24.84 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The litmus test

Well, we passed the litmus test with this article... Last night I went to see (and met) Betances' two main biographers, Paul Estrade and Félix Ojeda Reyes, on the formal presentation of the first two books of Betances' complete works. Ojeda gave one heck of a master class, emphasizing the interrelationship of the work of the main proponents of the Antillean federation, all from their respective angles and lines of work, and particularly, many reflections on Máximo Gómez and his relationship with Betances that deserve at least one short paragraph or two here... as long as we have a written reference for each. Estrade apparently gave another master class earlier in the day, teaching about Betances' four desirable qualities that he, in his view, can make his memory and life work attractive to younger generations. As some of the assistants to the morning session said, it was quite an eye opener to have a French man, speaking in perfectly fluent Spanish, teach Puerto Rican kids a thing or two about the "Padre de la Patria Puertorriqueña".

To my pleasant surprise, Ojeda was pleased with this article. "It is surprisingly good, quite complete", he said with a grin in his face. Estrade dedicated the book I bought to "a modern publisher of the Betancian (train of) thought". I was a bit embarrassed, since I merely quoted their works incessantly here. But I can't help to think that, if they're the experts and they liked what they saw, we all can pat ourselves in the back. The night's presenter said something earlier about not wanting the Betances philosophy to stay within the marble halls of the academia and reach out to the common people. I can only hope this is a good start... Demf (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step" I am sure that most of the Puerto Rican youth will eventually become curious after hearing Betances' name hundreds of times and will look it up in the internet, after all that is how I got to this article in the first place. Its good to see you back David. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference: Presencia del ideario masónico en el proyecto revolucionario antillano de Ramón Emeterio Betances, Nº 1

The link of this reference is not found. Lleó Pastor (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible new link [1]. Lleó Pastor (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments above refer to this line under the "Early years - Ancestry" section: "Betances claimed in his lifetime that a relative of his, Pedro Betances, had revolted against the Spanish government of Hispaniola in 1808 and was tortured, executed, and his body burned and shown to the populace to dissuade them from further attempts.<ref name="Dávila">Dávila del Valle. Oscar G., [http://www.triplov.com/carbonaria/antilhas/valle_01.htm Presencia del ideario masónico en el proyecto revolucionario antillano de Ramón Emeterio Betances], available at the Grande Loja Carbonária do Brasil's [http://www.triplov.com/carbonaria/ website]</ref>", and I have marked the reference as a broken link, per WP:LR. I am also adding the link you provided above ([http://ngsm.org/aleph/Hostos/masoneria_PR.html]). Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

FA?

This article does not appear to meet the WP:FA criteria. The structure is cumbersome and the sourcing uncertain because of a lack of proper inline citations. If this article is not improved, it should be taken to Wikipedia:Featured article review. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Good eye. Someone above stated it becmae FA on September 23, 2007. It might be worthwhile to see if sourcing was better then. Mercy11 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have also reviewed this article for WP:URFA/2020, and I share C&C's concerns about the structure of the article and paragraphs that do not have proper inline citations. After looking at this article's history, I don't think an editor has stepped forward to address these concerns and think this should go to FAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)