Talk:Puerto Ricans in World War II

Good Article nomination
I passed the article, it has great structure and it's well referenced, some work is still due to raise it to a Featured Article contender as well as raising the references to at least 40, but for now it has what it takes for GA. - 凶  23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article, and very informative. I learned plenty about the methods use to recognize veterans of this war from this article. I highly applaud Tony and other contributors to this article. I also highly recommend this article be nominated for any special recognition (even Article of the Day) by the site's administrator's. Would be a special and memorable tribute on Memorial Day/Veterans Day if selected as many Americans do not realize the contributions made by Puerto Rican servicemen (and women) in all wars the U.S. has been involved in since 1900. --XLR8TION 04:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rating
I beleive this article has much potential of becoming a good article however, the page formating is a bit bland - the images should be larger. Some spelling mistakes but, this can be easily fixed in a word editor talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 05:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! Tony the Marine 18:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold
There seems to be some misunderstanding about what the MoS actually says. So let me quote: "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface." Puerto Ricans in World War II is exactly that: merely descriptive. What the MoS says is that it should not be bold. It would be a pretty sorry MoS if it really did call for contorted lead sections as this. "Puerto Ricans in World War II who were members of the United States armed forces guarded U.S. military installations in the Caribbean and took part in combat in the European and Pacific theatres of the war. Puerto Ricans and people of Puerto Rican descent have participated as members of the U.S. armed forces in every conflict in which the United States has been involved since World War I." Include the article name if we need to twist things around it. If we include it don't do so in bold. J IM ptalk·cont 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Pearl Harbor of the Atlantic" section removed
I just removed a section entitled "The Pearl Harbor of the Atlantic" which discussed a large naval base at Roosevelt Roads. This section did not directly pertain to the topic of the article, which is after all about Puerto Ricans in World War II, not really "Puerto Rico in World War II". (My attention was actually called to the section because of the weak ending that "its fate changed" which, it turned out, had been taken from a ~2003 newspaper article.) Tempshill (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Expected" to serve?

 * Puerto Ricans had obtained U.S. citizenship as a result of the 1917 Jones-Shafroth Act and were expected to serve in the military.

This needs clarification; were they actually merely "expected" to serve, or were they required to serve when drafted, like all other US citizens? Tempshill (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question, I quess that the term "required" would apply to all those who served that were drafted, but since all served did not do so as a result of the draft, then they were "expected" to serve as their "patriotic" duty or as U.S. citizens.

One of the terms which I always have a problem with is the term "granted" as in "granted U.S. Citizenship". This is so because normally the term granted is associated with the result of when someone "asks" for something. For example : "I asked for permission and I was granted permission". In the case of U.S. citizenship, Puerto Ricans did not ask for it nor were they asked to vote if they wanted it and therefore, it can be said that U.S. citizenship was imposed on the people of Puerto Rico regardless if they wanted it or not because they had no say in the matter. I just do not think that the word "granted" is proper. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Additions to the Article
Suggestions for this section include other units to be included under World War II. Everyone knows about the 65th Infantry Regiment as this was organized before the war, and served in WW I, WW II and Korea.

There were other units which served in Panama with drafted Puerto Ricans. However, no one knows of these units as they did not serve in combat, but they were in tactical positions while being trained, which means they could have been attacked.

These were antiaircraft artillery battalions in the Panama Canal Zone.

Since this article is a featured article, I do not want to rush nilly-willy making such changes. I would like to know if and whether I could make these changes.

My concern started with the article Hispanic Americans in World War II which I find also erroneous in that those 12 US Army Puerto Rican battalions have been ignored.

I have stated in my user page what are those units and the sources. The sources are two US Army publications available from the National Archives and Records Administration, and the US Army Carlisle Barracks in Pennsylvania.

Please let me know what should I do, and if you can access my user page to see the corrections I would like to make.

Thanks,

Flyer333555 (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will look into this and take it up with Luis. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Taken care of! Luis was right, increased induction of Puerto Ricans from the island into the armed forces, permitted that units which were made of "mainland" soldiers in Panama and the British Islands be replaced by Puerto Ricans from the island. This was done with the intention of sending the mainland soldiers to fight overseas. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What the?
Here is an interesting case of "What the?'. This article first made "DYK" (Did you know?). It was later promoted to a "GA" (Good Article) status. With some additional fixes it made the "FA" (Featured Article) status. Finally, the article was so good that it was even featured in Wikipedia's main page. A couple of years later, because some internet sources ceased to exist, the article was "demoted" from "Featured Article" and not back to "Good Article" as logic would have it. It now has a regular non-important article status. It should have been returned to "GA" status. This is one of the things that make no-sense. Regardless, of what I consider as not being logically, this article in opinion continues to be a great one. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)