Talk:Military history of Puerto Rico/Archive 1

Pictures
Why are all the pictures on the right? Don't you think the page would look better if they were more scattered? ~ Taylorr 13:54, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spanish title
I'm a big proponent of multilingualism, but do we need the Spanish translation of the title? I was under the impression that non-English titles are given typically only for proper nouns. ~ Dpr 09:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the statement above.-Marine 69-71
 * Thanks for taking care of that. Kudos on the page, by the way! ~ Dpr 07:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sub-nation
Could we get some kind of source/documentation/link for the appelation "sub-nation"? I'm not doubting its validity, but I think that might be a good thing to have. Thanks! ~ Dpr 07:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re Last edit
It seems the originators of this FA established that the "military" history did not begin upon its discovery, just as the "military history" of Massachusetts didn't begin in 1620. I will leave THIS revert to those more in the know. Sfahey 30 June 2005 03:46 (UTC)

"military history" etc.
hi. I also don't agree that "the military history of Puerto Rico dates back to the 16th Century". Also, I am not sure about the continuation of this history into the modern period of ceding sovereignty to the U.S. - from Colombus through independence and until U.S. control, it is the military history a more or less (less as a colony, more as a nation) autonomous region. The role of Puerto Riccans in the U.S. Military seems to me part of a somewhat different article. Perhaps it would be better to name the article "military history of Puerto Rico in the post-Colombian era" and end it at the U.S. occupation with just a short summary of the later episodes. This is beyond me at the moment though as I'm new here... I hope someone could make something of these suggestions.


 * Unless there is a more formal definition of "Military History" to be adhered to that I am unaware of, I think it is OK to keep the activities of Puerto Rican Military Persons as part of the Military History of the Island. However, unless documentation can be provided that there was never any violent conflict on the island before White people arrived (which I highly doubt), there are serious problems with the unqualified statement that the "Military History of Puerto Rico dates back to the 16th Century." Leaving out the military story of the Puerto Rican Indians who were there earlier is actually non-nuetral, as it makes it appear that war is a white, or Western, or Old-World invention, and not a human phenomenon. Perhaps a revision could be "European Military History," "Formally Documented Military History" or even simply "The Military History of the Puerto Rican Indians was...(unknown? undocumented? or describe it?)"William Przylucki 30 June 2005 15:02 (UTC)

Clarification

 * O.K., I will attempt to clarify some of the comments written above. Until the arrival of the Spaniards to the island of Puerto Rico, there was "no" organized military institution.  That's why there is no military history of the Aztecs, Mayas or Apaches, even though they my have fought other tribes.  The military history in the island, as stated, started when the Spanish military institution fought the native Tainos.  Another point that I wanted to make is that before Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States, Puerto Rico was already a "nation" with its own culture, customs, language, currency and political structure.  Puerto Rico had been granted autonomous powers which eventually would prepare it for independence.  American citizenship, without the right to vote for president, was imposed upon the Puerto Ricans without a referendem or consultation.  The majority of the Puerto Ricans such as myself first consider ourselves "Puerto Rican".  Puerto Rico is a "territory" and not a state and is under the list of the United Nations as a "nation" to be discolonized.  Puerto Rico participates as an independent nation in certain events such as the Olympics and Miss Universe pageants.  The title of this article is proper and should stay as is because it is about the miliatry events in which the people of Puerto Rico have participated.  Just enjoy the article.  Tony the Marine 30 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)

What an ethno-centric point of view!
My first thought on reading the first sentence of this article was, "What a European way of looking at things". Of course there was military action in Puerto Rico before the Spanish showed up. I know very little of Puerto Rico's history, but it took me 30 seconds with google to turn up an article which says, "About 100 years before the Spanish invasion, the Taínos were challenged by an invading South American tribe - the Caribs". If I could uncover evidence of pre-European military history in 30 seconds, imagine how good a job might have been done in an afternoon?

New York City had the same problem. At one point, the article said something like "The first settlers arived in New York in 16XX". It then proceeded to describe how these "first settlers" threw out the people who already lived there. It seems to be a common idea that nothing happened anywhere before the Europeans arrived.

I would have hoped for better from a featured article. --RoySmith 30 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)
 * On a slightly different note, I am surprised that this pretty good article made it through the FAC gauntlet, especially since the entire second half is more "Military histories of Puerto Ricans".Sfahey 1 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)


 * The article stated above, does state that the Tainos and the Caribs fought amongst themselves, they did not have an organized military structure with a chain of command. Even cavemen fought amongst themselves and yet you cannot state that theirs was a military action.  It is very clear that the article tells about the first miliatry action in Puerto Rico involving an organized military structure, such as the Spanish Army against a tribe.  The early American Natives did not and still do not have an organized military structure. Tony the Marine 30 June 2005 19:09 (UTC)

Bacillary dysentery not plague
Previous historical references concerning the Count of Cumberland invasion to Puerto Rico, have described a epidemic outbreak of bacillary dysentery caused by shigellosis and not plague as previously ascribed to in the article.

References: Colle y Toste, Cayetano, Boletin Historico de Puerto Rico, Tomo V: 40-70. 1918.

Dr. Oscar Costa-Mandry, "Bacillary Dysentery in Puerto Rico", The Puerto Rican Journal of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 10(3)1935,pp 308-348.

Bernard Christenson MD, FACP,FIDSA bchristenson64@netscape.net

Military History Definition
I'm sorry Tony the Marine, but I have to continue to disagree with the statement that the Military history of Puerto Rico began with the arrival of Europeans, and I have many reasons. First of all, I think there is a misunderstanding of Military history. Wikipedia's article on the subject says that warring between tribes does constitute Military history. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that these tribes didn't have military structures when every other Indian tribe I know of did, at least in the level of having a chief of some sort, and then the warriors. Additionally, the Spanish "army" you speak of wasn't necessarily an army as such, it tended to be mercenary in nature, and there were all types of irregularities in how each squad functioned. None of them were de facto loyal to the Crown of Spain either, when not in hire by said Crown. Therefore, by your definition, the article should really start well after the European arrival.

I would also suggest that if an invasion of an entire island does not constitute "Military history" than large portions of great importance of the following wars also do not constitute "Military history" by virtue of having only disorganized fighters on one or both sides:
 * Vietnam
 * The Spanish Civil War
 * The American Revolution

...To name a few. I suggest that you or somebody else (and if I find time it will be me) do the necessary research to provide a pre-European Military history of Puerto Rico. Until this section is added, I feel that this article is not of nuetral POV because it in fact contains a Euro-centric POV.Billy P


 * I originated the article and worked together with many other disngished Wikipedians to bring it up to featured article status. Even though I myself believe that there must have been some fighting between the Tainos and the Caribs and it generally believed that there were some skirmishs between these two groups, I haven't found a realiable source which can comfirm it.  I would love to include in the Military history of Puerto Rico any event that went on during the Pre-Columbian era but, until that is the case, then I cannot.  The website cited above mentions something however, they fail to cite their source of information.  My work is based on research and therefore it not POV but, fact.  I believe that after passing the scrutiny of some of the respected Wikipedians reafirms what I'm saying.  I will countinue to do research and when I find a reliable reference as to any military action in Puerto Rico before the arrival of Columbus, then I'll do the upgrade. Tony the Marine 4 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)


 * I should add that I do think it is a great article and I have no problem with it reaching feature status. I am also not demanding that information be added that can't possibly be researched, that would clearly be absurd. What I'm saying is that the wording of "The military history of Puerto Rico dates back to the 16th century..." implies that there definately was not a military history before that, and therefore shortchanges the human history of the area prior to European arrival. I suggest that the wording be changed to "recorded military history." Even better, we could change it to "The Euro-American military history of Puerto Rico..." because, really, that's what the article is about. Let's call a spade a spade.Billy P 5 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

Untitled
Gentleman, Whilst I have the deepest respect for the persons or persons that researched the material for this article on Puerto Rico's military history, I must correct something. During the First World War, Puerto Ricans residing in the US(specifically New York( did not form the 369th Infantry Regiment! This regiment was an all Colored regiment composed almost entirely of African Americans. Nevertheless, many Afro Puertoricans and Afro Cubans joined it. Their recruiters came to Puerto Rico to recruit concert quality Afro Puerto Rican musicians for their regimental orchestra, and succeeded. Their ranks were also expanded by those black Boricuas and black Cubans residing in the greater New York area. Once in France, because of the racism existing in the US and the armed forces, they were not allowed to fight alongside white American troops. Instead they were handed over to the French Army, dressed in French uniforms, and fought for almost 200 days of continous combat. Stories have surfaced about "spanish speaking colored soldiers" confusing the Germans by yelling at then over "No Mans Land" in spanish, and using those same techniques to capture German prisoners. -It was the only volunteer regiment to serve during that war in France. -It was the first regiment in US history to serve as part of a foreign army. -The first allied regiment to reach the Rhine. -The longest combat service of any American unit in WW One-191 days. -The distinction of never losing a foot of ground. -Never losing a man by capture. -The first combat regiment to arrive home after the Armistice.

This entire, I repeat ENTIRE regiment was awarded the French Croix De Guerre for battlefeild gallantry by the President of France, this included the Afro Puertorican and Afro Cuban soldiers of the 389th Colored Regiment. Since history is oftentimes, lamentably, written by ommission, I was not aware of the Afro Boricua participation in this regiment until I walked into a home in the city of Luquillo in Puerto Rico and saw multiple military medals, framed on a wall. I recognized the French Croix De Guerre, and asked my brother to whom it belonged. It belonged to his father-in-law who was sitting on the porch.I spent the next several hours talking to this old soldier who was still ramrod straight. I also only learned recently that there are still some of those veterans alive, and that there was actually an association formed by them. I've asked about it but haven't found it yet.

Raymond Milián Moura

Footnote: The Hellfighters Of Harlem by Bill Harris

Issues of Particular Concern - POV
In general all military history is controversial as wars only happen when there is conflict. Therefore having a section on controversial issues doesn't make sense, especially when it is apparently only about recent events, and in one case about a research project with only peripheral military associations.

On the other hand, the rest of the article doesn't seem to be particularly neutral either, as there seems little hint of controversy, and rather a lot of chest beating.

This addition has already been reverted once (with no reason given, not that any reason was given for its addition or un-reversion either), but my feeling is that at least some of it is salvageable, if the points are integrated into the main timeline, and written without favouring one side or the other.

I'm not sure that the Coqui material belongs here at all, athough there is probably a case for an article about Coqui, but that needs to be written by someone who understands the science; I don't know a lot about the project and the materials used, but I can tell that the science is garbled in the way one would expect of a popular newspaper. It would need to be written from a more neutral point of view. This particular passage was also added to the Arecibo Observatory article, where it was largely off topic and justified no more space than, say, SETI@Home (which itself is probably over-covered).

Especially for controversial material (and anything that gets immediately reverted has to be considered controversial) it is important to quote sources. In particular opinions expressed should never be those of the writer, but should be attributable to credible sources. In trying to reduce the Arecibo Coqui item to reasonable size, I actually had some difficulty sourcing the negative side as the only material I could find came from anti-military pressure groups, and therefore likely to be seen as having less weight that academic papers or mainstream news media.

The contributor of this section is using a dynamic IP address, which means that my attempt to contact them after I noticed the first reversion probably hasn't reached them. It also means that their credibility will be in doubt so they will have more trouble than someone logged in in arguing a case to not have their material reverted on sight. My original advice to the contributor can be found at User talk:71.208.24.76.

--David Woolley 17:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Protect
I have placed a temp protection on this article's page due to the constant POV postings by User:71.208.24.76 which seem to be politically motivated. The points of view have nothing to do with the Military history of Puerto Rico. If said User wishes he/she may write an article and post the proper sources on the subject. Tony the Marine 17:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * To me it seems that marking this article protected is premature. Currently the position is two reverts to one.  As noted above, I agree that the disputed content is POV and also think that it has been inserted in a way that gives it too much prominence.  However, it hasn't reached a three reverts situation yet, not even taken over more than 24 hours and it is not disrupting the other content of the article.  I also feel that some of the disputed material is on topic and should be included.  It seems to me that this protection has been applied by an adminstrator who has too great a sense of onwership for the page to act impartially and he should ask another adminstrator to monitor the situtation.


 * As noted above, I also have a feeling that the article was POV the other way beforehand. --David Woolley 18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article?
The article is sadly not one of the best Featured articles out there, and a prime subject for WP:FARC. I'm going to try to improve this article out some in the next few days. Something that could be done is by expanding the lead as it is currently too short. Also needs a copyedit. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 06:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Some definitions
History my friends, is not a past event as many of you out there think; history is the interpretation of that event. That is, an event happens and nobody knows about it, that then is not history; it becomes history when somebody writes about it or speaks about it. It is a big misunderstanding to think of history as an event in the past. History is an academic discipline that one gets to study with its sets of rules and methods for doing it; methodology is called. Now, there is no previous [military history] before Columbus times by the simple reason that nobody has ever written about it, or has documented it in any other mean whatsoever. Of course there had to be some fighting between clans or tribes; somebody knows about them? The answer is no, there is no history to it; that it was an assumed past event, certainly; but no one has said nothing about it.

The contributor has a Ph.D in history, the discipline, for some years now. Now that is history, I'm telling you about it. Oh, and by the way; it is no interpretation, is a fact. --In terrorem fidei defenso 06:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Accents
I'm confused about accents throughout the Puerto Rican articles: do you all have a custom of *not* using the accents in names, as per Spanish? For example, Hector Andres Negroni (Andrés). Throughout the Venezuelan articles, we've put redirects to the correct names, with accents. Maybe you all have a different custom? Sandy 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It depdens, if the article was written by Tony it probably does not have accents and diacritics. I, for one, place accents on Spanish names. The Puerto Rican group is divided in this regard. Joelito (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, if the group is divided, I'll not change whatever is there. I added an accent to a Garcia somewhere: I'll go take it out. Sandy 22:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You may leave it. It will not be reverted. There is no harm in leaving the accent. Joelito (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Too late :-) Sandy 22:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Proper names must be written in their language. And that includes not translating names and including accents. RAMPG 02:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does needs accents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.114.204 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
An article this size needs tons of citations. This article has none. The lead is also too short for FA. There are also several other problems that I will identify at WP:FARC, which is where I'm taking the article.UberCryxic 02:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. As it is now, this article is far away from FA status. I went through the article and gave it a detailes review in Featured article review/Military history of Puerto Rico.--Yannismarou 08:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is information here that has not been verified but that forms part of the traditional folklore. Diego Salcedo's drawwining is a myth there is no evidence of one Diego Salcedo ever living in puerto rico and the only diego salcedo in the americas lived in the dominican republic and died of old age. Please verify this facts with Francisco Scarano's History of Puerto Rico the standard textbook used in the University of Puerto rico and the smaller version used by the Department of Education. 64.213.114.204 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be a myth, it may not. Sometimes it is hard to determine when a myth is a lie that has been accepted as a fact. However, the case is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which relies only on reliable verifiable sources. As such it would be acceptable to quote the findings of Dr. Ricardo Alegría. According to the respected and renowned Puerto Rican historian Ricardo Alegría, "The History of the Indians", Ricardo E. Alegría, 1969.[] and other verifiable sites, there was a Diego Salcedo who was drowned by the Tainos.

It must be remembered that history books are often written in accordance to the times and the beliefs of the author. For example, Nazi Germany attempted to rewrite their history books in accordance to their beliefs. Other nations have their history books in accordance to their beliefs. The United States for example, omitted the contributions made by the African-American community until recently and presently does not mention the contributions made by the Hispanics to the founding and formation of their country.

The history books used in Puerto Rico's educational system prior to 1898, were those written by Dr. Salvador Brau. However, after Puerto Rico became a possession of the United States, the Federal government asked the Commissioner of Education of Puerto Rico, Paul Miller, to rewrite an Americanized version of the history of Puerto Rico omitting some aspects of the islands history, which he did and which was then used in Puerto Rico's school.

What I'm trying to tell you here is that just because an incident is not mentioned in a history book widely used does not mean it did not occur. Gracias por escribir. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about verifiability not the "truth", accounts of this event are widespread in books and other reliable sources, Francisco's version was written from his point of view and he didn't include it based on his own criteria, however the event is notable enought to warrant its inclusion in this and other historical articles. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Question/Link
Mihiel Gilormini was featured as a "Did you know." Is he linked to this page? --57.68.138.132 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He is now. Tony the Marine 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Any information on the Provisional de Puerto Rico nº1 who fought at the Battle of Santiago in Cuba prior to and up till the Spanish-American War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.52.248 (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will check it out soon. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call and now it is done! I have added the following information: "The Spanish Crown sent the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Puerto Rican Provisional Battalions to defend Cuba against the American invaders. The 1st Puerto Rican Provisional Battalion, composed of the Talavera Calvary and Krupp artillery, was sent to Santiago de Cuba where they battled the American forces in San Juan Hill. After the battle, the Puerto Rican Battalion suffered a total of 70% casualties which included their dead, wounded, MIA's and prisoners." Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Error
In the Spanish-American war section, the article links to William H. Stewart (b 1920; 10th Surgeon General of US) instead of William H. Seward (Sec. of State under Lincoln, Johnson, et. al.). A simple (and kind of funny) mistake. 2601:A:5400:5B00:F8A6:E6A3:199:67A2 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2015
A great history of Puertorricans in various wars. I see two prominent names missing. These are Edgardo Vasquez-Bruno, who served in the Rhodesian War on one of the Rhodesian Light Infantry's elite Fire Forces. He was later an Army Reserve Major. Also missing is Nelson Fishbach, who served as a paratrooper in the US Army's 509th Airborne Bde in Italy before leaving the US Army to enlist in the South African Special Forces. Corporal Fishbach served in the famous 32 Battalion in Angola as a Special Forces "Recce". Former Sergeant Major Piet Nortje mentions Fishbach as the battalion's "only Puerto Rican" on page 57 of his book: "32 Battalion, the inside story of South Africa's Elite Fighting Unit". Comment on the First World War, the French Foreign Legion lists having had four Puertorricans who served in its ranks in the First World War. And as regards the Hernandez brothers, according to a musical military historian, Miguel Hernandez of New York, Rafael Hernandez and his brother were recruited by James Reese Europe, bandmaster of the Harlem Hellfighters Band, specifically to add an Afro-Caribbean beat to the band's repertoire. Various members of the band went on to play important roles in the Jazz world in New York and Paris after the war. I have to wonder of one of them was responsible for the use in the 'clave' in certain jazz arrangements.

03:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)72.91.93.30 (talk)

More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".