Talk:Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña

Changes
On what basis was the number changed from 50 to 120 and the one external link removed? john k 06:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * According to the NY Post, FALN had planted over 100 bombs in NYC during the 1970s. That alone negates the 50 bombs that once was in the article. Several more bombs were planted in Chicago, plus NYC had a few more bombs go off in the early 1980s. The Fraternal Order of Police have the number at 130.  The US Senate when condemning Clinton for clemency of 16 members of FALN had the number at 130, as did the US House of Rep.  Other sources have it higher than 135, others have it at 120 or lower. Since 120 seems to be in the ballpark, 50 doesn't.
 * As for the removal of links, they were all dead. Now, if you want to repost them, go ahead.Lokifer 06:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article doesn't say anything about FALN except that its a terrorist organization and lists "terrorist" activities. The article doesn't mention anything really about what the organization is / was - their politics - other then a free Puerto Rico - really doesn't mention anything.


 * Now it does :) -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  03:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]] The article is mostly well-written, but there are some issues. FALN Pardons of 1999 should be a subsection of the general history section, not separate. Incidents is also a part of the history, but considering it's on table format (looks good, btw) it is fine as a separate section immediately after History. Political position should be its own section, ideally titled "ideology" or something more appropriate. The contents of the section at present don't elucidate with context the position of the group on any political issue. They simply intimate their ideology. This should probably come before the history of the group, as understanding their ideology prior to reading a chronological recount of their deeds is important.
 * ✅ -- Ag  ü  eybaná  21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2. Factually accurate?: [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]] The use of inline refs is good, but some of the formatting for notes is vague. Numbers 11, 13, 14, and 15 all give a url and a retrieval date, but not any info on what the actual source is. This is inappropriate, and we need to know more than just the title of a source's article in order to judge its fitness as a reliable source. Just a url doesn't tell us if a source has fact checking and editorial review.
 * ✅ -- Ag  ü  eybaná  21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Seems to cover all relevant points concisely.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]] In the beginning of the article, it defines the FALN as a "clandestine paramilitary organization". That characterization is accurate, but later the article unequivocally admits that the acts they carried out were terrorism. If they were classified as a terrorist organization by any official body such as the FBI, or any notable individual such as the Clintons, then this needs to be mentioned for the sake of neutrality. I'm not saying the definition needs to be changed in the intro, but if it exists an attributed factoid calling the FALN a terrorist organization needs to be present. This is similar to such contested "terrorist organizations" such as the ALF.
 * ✅ -- Ag  ü  eybaná  21:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5. Article stability? [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.
 * 6. Images?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Present and accounted for with proper licenses.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Van Tucky  Talk 20:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold completed; passed GA nomination
I just want to sincerely congratulate you both. Never have I had editors so quickly and efficiently work to improve an article during a hold. Good work! Van Tucky  Talk 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for review. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  22:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WSJ article
I added one sentence and a reference to a recent WSJ article on the pardons. The anon keeps removing it. I am not in a mood for the edit war. Please voice your opinion here if the sentence has a place to be on this page. Mhym (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I support keeping the information. Seems relevant enough. --Agüeybaná 23:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

i support the addition.--Overhere2000 (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Expanded pardons
In the History section I corrected some names, and added a little on the people the FALN requested to be released in their communique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseidave (talk • contribs) 03:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An anonomous edit thought the change was biased. Modified the expansion to highlight the connection between the FALN and those they wanted pardoned.Aseidave (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Glaring omission
This is not a good article in my book, but it is relatively better than most here. I came here wanting to learn and find out WHY did president Bill Clinton pardon certain members of the FALN? Why????? I would like to understand the purpose behind the pardon.

thanks,

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesZeller (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not finding any answers, the more I search the more questions I have. I did find this article in Wall Street Journal though, titled "The Clintons' Terror Pardons" (2008):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html

thanks,

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesZeller (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

www.latinamericanstudies.org
I removed the section about political positions because is cited only to one source,www.latinamericanstudies.org. Wikipedia requires secondary/independent sources. This is not one of them and is difficult to establish attribution to the document in question. --Jmundo (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the references in the article, I think is time to re-assess the article's GA status from 2007. The article weak point is lack of sourcing from secondary reliable sources. Also, the content needs to be updated. --Jmundo (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the question of attribution of the document outlining the political position of the FALN, a PDF copy of the original document is posted on the website www.latinamericanstudies.org. This website was developed and is maintained by Dr. Antonio Raphael de la Cova, a professor of Latino Studies at Indiana University (at least he was at the time).  As such the authenticity is attributable to him.  So I am curious, why does the previous editor feel that the document is without attribution and, more importantly, that the website is not a secondary/independent/reliable source? Hammersbach (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Professor" De la Cova convicted of attempting to bomb an establishment is far from being a reliable source. --Jmundo (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was already aware of the sorry event before I asked the question. You see the thing is, after that affair De la Cova earned his doctorate and was later hired by Indiana University, an institute of higher learning, that placed enough faith in his reliability and depth of knowledge of the subject that they entrusted him with teaching it. Since the website was written after he was vetted by IU, I ask the question again, why does the previous editor feel that the document is without attribution and, more importantly, that the website is not a secondary/independent/reliable source? Hammersbach (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that the website is hosted by the University? Are you arguing in favor of inclusion because is an academic site and is peer reviewed? How is responsible for the content? An editorial board? Besides, the point is that reliable/independent sources are available to back up the information about political views. If you want to ask more question you go here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Jmundo (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You continue to avoid answering the question. Well, as you wish. The information and citation were originally added in September, 2007. The article was reviewed by an editor and granted the status of Good Article in October of that same year. You have somehow come to the opinion that the citation for the section on the political position of the FALN is inadequate/unacceptable. Since the citation has already been reviewed and accepted, the onus is on you to show otherwise. I am going to re-add the section and citation. If this troubles you then might I recommend that you contact the approving administrator to find out why he thought it was acceptable, or perhaps follow your own advice and take it to the noticeboard? Hammersbach (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as Wikipedia rules are concerned it doesn't matter if the professor is/was a bomber or not, it doesn't matter if a PDF copy of the original document is posted on a website, it doesn't matter if the author of a source has the blessing an university by hiring the author, and it doesn't matter if the information was previously admitted into an article by whoever, admin or not. None of those arguments for or against matter in helping a source pass the WP:RS test and be allowed as valid attribution into an article.


 * Per WP:SPS, what matters is that the source has been published by a trustworthy publishing company. Such companies are credited with publishing material that has passed rigorous editorial review, and Wikipedia likes that. Dr. De la Cova's LatinAmericanStudies site is a self-published site and, thus, does not pass that criteria. As such, the source is not reliable and cannot be kept.


 * Also, although not an issue of contention so far as I can tell, I would agree that the information presented about the FALN's philosophy is perhaps in line with their modus operandi, but disputed and without a non-SPS source, it is best kept out until it can be validated by a reliable secondary source (WP:V). In any event, we shouldn't depend on a single, isolated, and shaky source for information as critical as this for an organization as widely studied and documented and this, and I am sure someone can find a good WP:RS for their philosophy. Removed as WP:SPS. Mercy11 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't read my previous comment completely? The source has already been approved by an admin.  I would recommend you take it up with them rather then pretending that it is an open matter for your approval? Hammersbach (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Consequences of clemency offer
Why is this not in the article? Did any of them take Clinton up on it, or did they refuse, or was the offer withdrawn?Pokey5945 (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be classified as a terrorist organization?
Just look at the incidents section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8d:8780:3a73:69e0:2688:2cdb:1209 (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Did the FALN really end operations in 1983?
"Puerto Rico's governor, Pedro Rossello, placed the island's National Guard on alert after the National Armed Liberation Force (FALN) warned it planned violent action in to support the [Vieques] protesters." - "Thousands demonstrate against use of Vieques by Pentagon"; Luis Torres de la Llosa; May 5, 2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:301:2C20:DD72:F1DC:B3A1:DDE9 (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Article name
What sources use the name Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña, and why is this article not at Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (Puerto Rico)? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:44, February 26, 2023 (UTC)


 * As you may noticed I restored the comment you had first added but which you then subsequently deleted. The reason is the explanation you gave for the delete is not valid. Let me explain what I mean by not valid. First of all, I am 110% convinced you made both your original edit and its subsequent removal edit entirely in good faith. Where I feel you missed the mark is in your edit summary comment of 19:58, 26 February 2023, here, where you stated "found [a source for the name "Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña"], eg https://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/FALN-1.pdf)".
 * The problem, you see, is that the website you entered, https://www.latinamericanstudies.org, is a self-published source and thus a non reliable source with the consequential result that your original talk page edit was correct but its subsequent removal was, let's say, unintentionally non-beneficial.
 * IAE, I wanted to let you know 2 things: (1) that because the site is SPS I reverted removed the alleged logo/flag of the FALN organization, for that logo/flag came from that same SPS site and I haven't found any support for that as the logo/flag of the FALN Puertorriqueña in any RS elsewhere, and (2) that the logo/flag in question was, in fact, the only place in the entire article that called the organization "Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña". This, then, brings back to the surface your original concern of why not just Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (Puerto Rico) which, like you in your original inquiry I, too, think is the proper name for this article.
 * That said, if you want, go ahead and move the article to Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (Puerto Rico) and you will have my full support. Thanks and best regards, Mercy11 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to rock the boat but I just thought the name absolutely strange. But I won't be the one to make the move ... would want to see more sources.  I haven't looked in to whether there were past discussions, or how this came to be.  Is there a strong WikiProject that might help ?  Is there missing background?  I have a strong hunch that you are right, Mercy11, and the article is misnamed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Noticed that even the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't do this. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You can leave a message at the WikiProject Puerto Rico here if that's what you were looking for (it's the same WikiProject Puerto Rico page used to notify the WP Proj members of the delist nomination. As for sources, please see my recent edits in the history section of the article. I came across this article many, many years ago, and always suspected something fishy with it, and this year decided to delve into it and it was then that I discovered that the two sources used for over 95% of the article were sources to SPS. They article fooled me for many many years, with those 2 sources and in particular the purported lationamericanstudies site. This is how I immediately recognized what you went thru that lead you to the reversal of your Talk Page comment based on that fake latinamericanstudies site, because I had experienced the same thing before. In fact, several other editors must have (tacitly) agreed with me bc, if you look at the article's history, you will see that within 1-2 days of my recent thousands-bytes-of-text-reverts in that article, they (I was never involved) brought up the article for delisting as a GA, a level it had been at for almost a decade. BTW, another article I am going to be looking at very closely is Boricua Popular Army as the 2 articles were apparently created around the same time (~2007) and I suspect many of the same editors were involved in both. IAE, I have no problem moving this article to its rightful location, if you can't get to it for now, but won't do it for at least a few days so as to give a chance to anyone else watching to chime in. Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How about letting this thread sit for a few days then, and if no one weighs in, I would be willing to move? Ping me if I forget pls?  (quite busy elsewhere; it was GAR where I saw this). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)