Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hispanic Americans in World War II


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Hispanic Americans in World War II
"Self-nom"-There were several reasons which motivated me to write this article. One of them is that the Hispanic contributions in World War II have been omitted in the history text books of the United States and therefore are seldom mentioned. Another reason is that I believe in the educational possibilities of Wikipedia and by writting such an article I would be able to reach and educate millions of readers about these contributions, thereby allowing recognition to those who deserve it. I have tried to make this one of my best articles and one that I hope deserves FA status. Thank you. Tony the Marine 19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to rename this article. When I first saw it on my watch list, I assumed it was about the contribution of Hispanics in the United States to WWII, and this has to be clear in the article's title, because Hispanics fought for many other countries in WWII, not just as part of the US military forces.  KP Botany 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do as soon as I get home (smile) Tony the Marine 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm concerned about the number of personal webpages used to source the article; several of them don't meet WP:V, WP:RS. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will change the title to "Hispanic Americans in World War II", which I believe is more appropriate. The reason that I originally named "Hispanics" is because the term is generally used in the U.S. to describe an ethnicity, however I see the validity of your observation. In regard to the webpages, I will look into it. Tony the Marine 23:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved page as recommended and I almost made a mess of it (smile). Tony the Marine 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Support will most likely be support after a couple of things are fixed (sorry Tony, but I know that you would rather I was critical :) )
 * the Lead is very long, would id be possibly to trim some of the info into other sections? Possibly by a paragraph or so?
 * 65th regiment, is there a particular reason why this is the section title while other units are discussed?
 * PFC Guy Gabaldon, how did he capture so many soldiers?
 * He could speak Japanese, and convinced them they were outnumbered, surrounded, and fighting was hopeless, so they surrendered. The article needs to say that. It's still an achievement, but human. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "He captured more enemy soldiers then Sergeant Alvin York, who was awarded the Medal of Honor, during World War I, for having captured 132 enemy German soldiers" it almost sounds like the article is having a whine about that :D
 * List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients could be incorporated into the prose of that section of this article perhaps?
 * Postscript End of the War, this is an unusual section title, not sure if I quite follow....
 * There are a number of one sentence paragraphs that could be incorporated

There may be a couple of copy edit issues as well but I can have a trawl through and fix any that I find. If you could answer or address some of my points above, the article would definitely get my support for FA. SGGH speak! 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

2. In regard to PFC Guy PFC Guy Gabaldon, since there is an article in Wikipedia which details his accomplishments and I have linked said article, I don't want to take up too much by expanding what is already available. 3. There is no whine, only a comparison, because there have been many movements to have PFC Guy Gabaldon's Navy Cross upgraded to MoH without any success. The intention is to have the reader will wonder why and seek further knowledge about the issues involved. 4-6, these are minor issues which can be taken care of. Tony the Marine 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. I know that the lead paragraph may be a little long, However I have seen to many FAC complaints as to the fact that intro paragraphs are not long enough and I believe that this one goes in accord with the length of the article
 * Postscript End of the War? fixed Tony the Marine 00:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! I forgot to answer about the 65th Infantry. I have written about the other units in the article, but sourced information is rather limited. The 65th Infantry of Puerto Rico is widely known for their participation in the Korean War, but their contributions in WW II are rarely mentioned and I have corrected this wrong. Tony the Marine 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey impressive, it covers basically every possible aspect I could think of and reading it leaves clear how hispanic people heavily helped in maintaining this nation's freedom. Yeah this is definitely worth of my Support. - 凶 02:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks great, Tony, I fixed a couple of typoes and I support. Andre (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote to support after my points were answered. Great stuff :) SGGH speak! 13:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, There is nothing like this anywhere. Antonio Martin 18:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I can't find anything on the internet on the topic and there few books and scholarly journals that chronicle the accomplishments and brave contributions of the 65th Infantry. Tony (the article's author) is one of the foremost experts on the military accomplishments of Hispanic-Americans in the United States Armed Forces that I know. It would be a great tragedy for a site such as Wikipedia to not cover this important topic many out there know so little about. --XLR8TION 22:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Work needed. I worked on the article for a few hours tonight; it's not close to ready for promotion.  I fixed several MOS errors (WP:MOSNUM, WP:DASH and WP:MSH), hanging references not attached to quotes, and then started working from the bottom on copyediting and completing references.  I found several significant copyediting errors that changed the intended meaning.  Most of the sources don't yet have full biblio information, with publishers not yet identified, so reliability of sources can't be identified (nonetheless, I flagged non-reliable sources and personal webpages just in the sections I worked on, for example, a personal website referencing hard data about World War II).  Much work remains to be done; I did as much as I can tonight and I'll be glad to help, but this article is not ready for FA status. See the sample edits in the diff above for an idea of the work still needed. I'm sorry to swim against the tide of the Puerto Rican editors, but we can get this fixed, and it should be fixed.   Once the sourcing, copyediting and MOS issues are cleaned up, the WP:LEAD will need attention; it goes into too much detail, for example, the definition of hispanic isn't really appropriate to the lead. There are several sections containing information that strays off topic and is covered in links (things like definitions of discrimination or segregation, covered in other wiki articles, and sound esssayish). Numerous uncited statements.  Less than half the way through cleaning up refs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A complete turnaround in the sourcing in the last day; I'll look at Tony1's copyedit concerns next (and watch for the "she" nurse). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose—1a, and I'm concerned about what Sandy says in relation to referencing. The first two paragraphs provide ample evidence that a thorough copy-edit by fresh eyes is required. Significantly below par. Random examples:
 * Ungainly repetition: "the United States" appears again and again and again through the lead. Change some to "the nation" and "the country". "every military conflict in which the United States has been involved from the American Revolution to the present day." Why not "every U.S. military conflict since the American Revolution". Then "any" again and again in one sentence. That's easy to fix.
 * "When a Japanese Imperial Navy carrier fleet launched an unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Hispanics, who were subject to widespread discrimination both at home and the military, joined the ranks of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, either as volunteers or as a result of the draft in defense of the United States"—The clause on discrimination doesn't sit smoothly in this long sentence. Introduce it in another sentence. Needs recasting; remove the text after "draft"; adds nothing in the context.
 * Hands up who doesn't know what a nurse is; or the English language; or combat, battlefields, munitions. Really! We DO speak English, and these are dictionary terms. Please audit the whole article for overlinking, so that your high-value links aren't diluted by useless ones.
 * "this is a rough estimate and the exact number of Hispanics who served will never be known"—Remove "who served". There's a lot of redundancy, given the wider context. Please audit the whole article in this respect. Tony 12:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: you need to sort out what the 200th and 515th National Guard units were. They're referred to as battalions, then Coastal Artillery regiments. Please find and insert the correct titles. Hey, rereading, noticed you used '...for her service to our country...' in reference to a nurse. Avoid this: the Net ain't American. Cheers Buckshot06 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I believe that concerns have been taken care of. User:Buckshot06, you were right about the Regiment and Battalion observation, however, I can not seem to find the "for her service to our country" which you stated. Please if you do be my guest and fix it, if not let me know exactly where it appears. Tony the Marine 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose/Neutral Having looked over the article I feel that there is too much emphasis on "trees" and not enough on the "forest"; this should be a broad overview of Hispanics in WWII, yet a sizable chunk of it seems devoted to individual hispanics and the sacrafices that they made in service to the United States. Also, some primary categorical reoginzation is in order: if I were you, I would consider merging the Aviators, Servicewomen, Senior Officers, and Submarine Commanders sections into the European and Pacific theatre sections, and merging Discrimintation into postscript. I would also suggest creating an "Honoring Hispanics who Served" section and merging Hero Street, USA and the Medal of Honor Section into this new section. Lastly, I would highly recommend dismantling the "see also" section and placing the content into the parent article to cut down on space. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As the article states, the Department of Defense did not document the contributions of Hispanics and therefore due to the lack of the same it is a diffcult task to make an emphasis on the "forest". The "trees" that are mentioned are notable men and women who for unknown reasons seem to have fallen into the cracks of history and are rarely mentioned in history books. Your recommendations will be taken into consideration. Tony the Marine 06:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a real bright move on the DoD's part now, was it? I mean its not like us white folks did all the work in the wars -- for crying out loud man slaves fought for our nation during the civil war, and all people seem to remember are the contributions made by white folks. As a history major I can say in honesty that it concerns me immensly that what I learn in an institute of higher education may be nothing more than the history white poeple want me learn. Even more disturbing is the fact the articles I have promoted to FA status may be negleting a few good men simply becuase they were minorties. Since you have agreed to look into my recommendations I will exchange my weak oppose for a neutral, when and if the other concerns are addressed I will re-evaluate my stance. Until then, I will leave you alone to handle the problem as you see fit. Good luck, Tony. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely some of your suggestions will be worked on. I find your perspective (Comments on history) refreshing. Omissions made in history books have no justification and I believe that future historians such as yourself will look into correcting these faults. Tony the Marine 20:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I merged several of the sections per Tom's suggestions, and trimmed the See also to reflect articles already linked. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Looks better than it did. I still have some reservations about the sizable amount of bio material present in the article; however, I can not in good faith oppose because the DoD did a shoddy job of keeping records on the matter. Tony's done the best with what he had to work with, and the article does satisfy all needed FA criteria. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Ethnic nationalistic puff piece. Gives disproportionate weight to what was, in terms of numbers and impact, a small minority. Singles out individuals to give a distorted view of the group's contribution to the war, therefore fails to give a neutral and broad view. A perfect example of historical revisionism, but with enough holes for the reader to see through. Michael talk 10:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm truly sorry that you feel that way, however this not about Ethnic nationalistic nor about rewriting history. Until recently the contributions made by African Americans and Native Americans were also ignored by our historians also. This is about about contributions of a group which should never have been omitted in the first place. Tony the Marine 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The contribution of minorities in any conflict of any country is often overlooked. These types of articles bring about information and narratives of people and events which are considered very useful for ethnic and minority studies. - Mtmelendez (Talk 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not on the basis that they're minorities and therefore, by some twist of logic, by default irrelevant. It's the fact that you're giving disproportionate weight to the figures you talk about. It's a list of figures who, by some measure, have performed well in the fighting; suitable for a article in a magazine called diversity weekly, but not in an encylopedia. Could we get away with the same article style for White Americans or African Americans? How do you think those articles would look if they were like yours?


 * No, it is a puff piece. Filled with unencylopedic garbage ("Thank the good Lord for making me a Latino.") and made to make people feel pride in their origins, rather than a neutral and complete history of Hispanics in WW. There's also a whole section dedicated to lecturing people on the evils of racism. But, your bandwagon has spoken, and this piece of trash will soon be an FA—sheep! Michael talk 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that, its a shame that the "Land of the free" is the only nation that is still influenced by racist interests (dividing its own population based on heritage), I guess in Australia there isn't racial discrimination (yeah right...) but what can one expect of an user that has been blocked for uncivility after all ignorance is the worst sin there is. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  01:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support- excellent article that highlights the incredible and undeniable contributions of Hispanics to a war that changed the world. I'm truly sad that people still feel the way Michael does. -- Boricua  e  ddie  18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support- most of the many Hispanics who volunteered or were drafted and served during WWII upon reaching the age of 21 were not allowed to vote for their Commander-in-Chief, either because they were not American citizens yet, resided in the territory of Puerto Rico or were subject to the same barriers (poll taxes, etc) that African Americans were subject to, yet they were proud to serve. I recently attended a funeral service at the National Cemtery in Hato Tejas, Puerto Rico and was able to walk around newly-placed headstones and was impressed at the large number of WWII vets who have recently been buried there.  That's the best evidence of the large participation of Hispanics in that war that this excellent article documents.  Finally, the timing for the decision that we must reach on this article is excellent---within weeks of the premiere of the Ken Burns PBS documentary that totally ignores Hispanic participation in WWII and at the time that the 'Borinqueneers' documentary is inching its way into the schedules of some PBS stations with large Puerto Rican populations.Pr4ever 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support this article is breathtaking in its scope, research and prose. Tony, you have truly outdone yourself.  Beautiful work and a credit to what Wikipedians can accomplish.  Bravo!  --David Shankbone 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. It looks really good, Tony. I realize we are having to rely almost entirely on testimonials and biographies, which makes it difficult to give a generalized picture. It is quite an accomplishment to be able to piece together such a cogent narrative from such a fragmented literature. Almost all the Mexican American civil rights leaders I have studied have some experience with the war. It might do to expand on the role of WWII in propelling the Hispanic American civil rights movement. And there was also the religious contribution. Fray Angélico Chávez was a chaplain in the pacific, for example.--Rockero 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I note that the supporters below my oppose are Hispanics who jumped on the bandwagon to support their comrade. Numbers, eh? Michael talk 02:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Miguel/Michael: I thought you were Hispanic, too!  Or is it only a minority of Anglos who oppose this nomination?Pr4ever 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, User:Michael, please stop insulting someone else's work with comments such as "puff piece", "garbage" and "trash". You are being disrespectful and not acting in a civil manner. You have already cast your vote and expressed your opinion. Go on with your life, please. Tony the Marine 05:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? This is going to be promoted due to a bunch of Hispanics jumping on the bandwagon to support this article. It isn't being examined critically. Numbers don't mean it's good. Answer my query above. Michael talk 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Sumoeagle179 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, on the condition that the table with how many Hispanics won medals for their service somehow be shifted to the left or the right. The stark white space on both sides is very distracting and draws away from what otherwise is a good article. Oh, and Michael, I'm 100% WASP as hell, and I think it's a wonderful article. Have I been watching too many Chico and the Man reruns? What's my excuse? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! At first I thought that it would overlape too much into the other section, but it doesn't look too bad at all. Tony the Marine 23:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I've re-read the article, taking into considerations the arguments made by Michael, however I still stand by my argument that this type of article is a welcome narrative useful for minority and Hispanic studies. Although it sometimes dedicates time to describe the actions of individuals, the article incorporates so much info that its still comprehensive. The article also provides statistics and information on regiments and battalions. Plenty of reliable sources and the article's comprehensiveness make me lean towards support, despite Michael's arguments. - Mtmelendez (Talk 10:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There seem to be many plenty of not so reliable sources, almost all on the side of the Hispanic or the veterans' groups.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, It should be noted that Michael, feels that "regardless of their ethnicity and political orientation, all Americans are indeed fools." see: . His ill feelings are towards Americans in general and not towards one group in particular. Tony the Marine 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I like the article, but don't think its FA material. --evrik (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The second setence in the lead: Hispanics, who constitute the largest minority group in the United States, might be misleading as it leads the reader to think that they were the largest minority during World War II. Please specify the time period fot this fact. Thank you. CG 09:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, Tony the Marine 17:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. I've been on vacation so I missed the entire previous discussion over this article. Reading the article with a fresh eye, I must say it definitely qualifies as one of the best Wikipedia articles. Also, despite Michael's view, this is not a "ethnic nationalistic puff piece." While this was mentioned before, Ken Burns upcoming documentary makes no mention of Hispanic contributions to WWII and this fact has been incredibly controversial. The fact that such a well-regarded filmmaker like Burns would be taken to task for such an omission shows that this subject is incredibly valid and needed at Wikipedia. Otherwise, this is a well written and well researched article deserving of FA status.--Alabamaboy 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Firstly, it uses a lot of sources which in my opinion are biased.
 * "Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II. Latino Advocates for Education, Inc." - I do not think an ethnic awareness/pride group should be used, especially as we are talking about something 60 years ago and there should be no shortage of opportunities for historians to write about it
 * Just walking through the first 25 footnotes, I find a high amount of sources which for me, definitely not acceptable
 * 3 - Appears to be from an ethnic messageboard/website: "The myth of immigrants draining our health care system and raising costs doesn't have a basis in reality. So, now that we know immigrants use less health care - is that a good thing or a bad thing for public health and community well being?" gives me the impression that this source is definitely not academically oriented or reliable.
 * 6 - Rosie the Riveter: About.com - mirror of Wikipedia
 * 7 - "Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II" - Latino advocate website again
 * 9 - Hispanic online - appears to be a ethnic pride site - "A new generation carries on a proud military tradition"
 * 10 - mervino.com - appears to be a home-made website
 * 11 -American Veteran's Committee for Puerto Rico Self-Determination - appears to be Hispanic veterans lobby group
 * 14 - www.valerosos.com/ - appears to be an unpublichsed essay hosted on the website of a descendant of a veteran

So, out of the first 14 refs, I feel that 7 are already biased or unreliable, mostly consisting of ethnic sites which tend to be too rosy, while others are veterans groups and probably are also pro-soldier and romanticised. Glancing down the lists there appears to be a lot of self-made websites by veterans and so forth. This, in my opinion is not acceptable for Wikipedia.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I feel that the article is written in a emotional tone which deviates from the objectiveness required for an encyclopedia. I think the discrimination section sticks out for me. Generally, I do tend to avoid using first-person quotes, ie, long quotes of a person talking about themselves. The vast majority of autobiographical accounts of all things, IMHO, tend to err on the side of being self-serving - the memoirs of politicians and sports coaches etc vitriolically blaming everyone else for the problems and so forth.....While in this case, one would generally agree that Hispanics and other minority groups got the rough end of the stick, the prolific use of first-person recollections swing the POV balance towards the first person. First person recollections of all types also tend to put the reader into their shoes and their POV and tend to emotionalise things in an excessive manner, which IMHO makes the article flowery in that section. In general, the highly anecdotal style in which this article is written, will gear it towards pulling heart strings rather than objective coverage. One example is how it says "leaving behind a family" in one of the examples. This is true of a very substantial if not a majority of servicemen, that they go into battle with an anxious family at home. Such padding, IMO, is not encyclopedic. On the other hand, someone could decide to be not so romanticised and add accounts of boozing or womanising. If we are to discuss notablity, we should focus on teh general statistics and so forth, and then mention things proportional to WP:N, which means generals, admirals, air force commanders, colonels, majors and so forth in decreasing priority. As it stands, the article is dominated by anecdotes of some people who received citations for bravery and so forth but were Lieutenants. Looking at the table you have provided tells me that thousands of people received Bronze Stars, but the case of one or two are prominently highlighted when neither the rank of lieutenant nor a bronze star are particularly rare but in fact rather common. This skews the article towards romanticism and one would suspect that all Hispanics either received bravery awards, were high ranking officers or were extremely decorated - over and above the average person. Conversely one might ask what the statistics on bad soldiers were, eg dishonorable discharges, court martials and desertions. I feel that this article is mostly a collection of "success stories" and is not a fair account.  Blnguyen   ( bananabucket ) 04:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, your comments are more then welcomed. In regard to the sources, the reliablility of the same were verified by User:SandyGeorgia which is a very capable person. You must remember that the Department of Defense did not keep stats on Hispanics during that era and therefore we must depend on the documentation gathered by such people as Maggie-Rivas for the University of Texas. In regard to the decorations table, it clearly states: "the figures are based on listings of military service personnel that have been complied from military records, historical documentation, or personal accounts." True the table lists 2 thousand Silver Star Medals and 1 thousand Bronze Star Medals, but this is not to romanticise and is a small number when it is estimated that possibly over 500,000 Hispanics served. My intentions are not to romanticise the Hispanic experience. I have provided some the horrors which these men suffered with examples of the Bataan Death March and the suffering of the common family with the example of the Sandoval family. History books themselves are baised and are written in accordance to the beliefs of the eras in which they are written. I have written about the accomplishments of some successful Hispanics, which mind you were Generals, Admirals, Colonels, Captains and just regular foot soldiers because these accounts are not mentioned in history books. Discrimination played a big role in the lives of these men and was a big issue then as it is now. I had to relie on the interviews conducted by Prof. Maggie-Rivas team, of those who suffered it in the flesh and quote them. Maybe that is why the contributions made by Hispanics were omitted then and continue to be omitted now. As I stated before, I have written this article within Wikipedia policy without having to enter into original research.  I want to thank you once again for you opinion and I want you to know that I don't mind your oppose, because you handled yourself in a civil manner. Tony the Marine 06:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article has improved markedly since I first read over it; I didn't comment then due to some lively discussion/distraction taking place, but I don't think some major concerns have been addressed. Blnguyen brought up the issue of sources, and some are still suspect.
 * It's understandable that there may not be readily available data/sources on hispanicsin ww2, but I don't think enough effort has been made to find academic sources. There are hardly any references that are books or journal articles.
 * Although the large chunks of monologue have been removed, I'm still concerned about the mini-biographies. What criteria was used to choose who to profile? They may be highest ranking, but were they the most notable or have the most impact? Where are the citations proclaiming the importance of the chosen few above the others?
 * The section on discrimination as others have mentioned, is somewhat tenuous. If you want an extended discussion of racism and discussion during ww2, where's any mention of the Zoot-suit riots?.

Recurring dreams 11:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The concern about the reliability of the sources were already once handled by User: SandyGeorgia as stated almost at the beginning of this FAC. Those that are mentioned as suspect are sources which are cited by Hispanic historians, in which case makes them reliable. I would love to cite more books or journals and I would if they were to be found, however since this is a subject which did not receive the same attention as others and I am not allowed to indulge in original research, it will be up to future historians to make sure that these contributions will be documented and posted on journals so that future generations may benefit from their findings.
 * Comment,Thank you for your concerns. At times it seems as if these are the same questions asked over and over again, but asking never hurts.

2. I have made it a point to note the contributions of every notable Hispanic officer that I could find. These are not mini-bios, the mini-bios can be found in the links provided which will lead the reader to the subjects page. The two Generals mentioned did make important contributions to the outcome of the war. In regard to the other four soldiers mentioned with some degree of length, their feats such as capturing over 1,000 enemy soldiers, the most decorated soldier, becoming the last “Ace in Day” and becoming the first recipient of the Medal of Honor on American soil, truly deserve to be described. All who made notable contributions as members of the Armed Forces of the United States during the war are mentioned regardless of the impact which these contributions have made.

3. Although the Zoot-Suit riots occurred in Los Angles in 1943, between American sailors and Mexican and Filipino Americans, it had nothing to do with the contributions of Hispanic Americans in World War II. Discrimination was rampant throughout the United States, however the subject of Discrimination within the article is about the situation within the military and the fact that those served their country continued to face discrimination as civilians. The testimony of four soldiers from different backgrounds and races were used and this was intentional so that the reader could understand that there were many soldiers who had to deal with two enemies, the one aboard and the one at home.

I am sorry if this article does not meet what some may consider encyclopedic material, but I did the best that I could with what little I had. Tony the Marine 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC) *Oppose - Perhaps this article, with some work, could be cleaned up. My objections, in addition to those listed by  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ), are the following (these are examples):
 * The article has a great deal of irrelevant information that interferes with a clear focus on the subject. For example, information about the 2000 census has nothing to do with World War II. Long descriptions of general material about the war, about industries related to the war, how many aircraft were produced, about women in the military (WAVES) etc. is just general World War II material, irrelevant to the article's subject, and the related references do not mention Hispanics. All of the Rosie the Riveter stuff is irrelevant as none of the sources to Rosie the Riveter mention Hispanic women, and one of them is to about.com, a Wikipedia mirror site. (I am surprised that is still in the article, as it was mentioned above and is a clear violation of WP:V, WP:RS etc.) Irrelevant sites not mentioning Hispanics include:
 * http://www.rosietheriveter.org/congresshonorsrosies.htm
 * http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/journey/rosie-transcript.html
 * http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A85740
 * http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/WWII_Industry/Aero7.htm


 * Several of the references go to sites that are not worthy sources for a FA. References that go to book sales sites (http://www.latinoadvocates.org/purchasebook2005.html), to sites that are offering paid registration for an event (http://www.bataanmarch.com/History.htm), or memorial sites that are soliciting donations (http://www.womensmemorial.org/Education/HisHistory.html) are not unbiased, reliable sources . Nor are personal memorial sites like http://mervino.com/window/IBB/canpics/can46-1.html eligible as sources.


 * Some of the sources are questionable for other reasons also. For example, one that goes to http://www.angelfire.com/nm/bcmfofnm/names/names_pu/ralphrodriguez.html says NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, but then there is no subsequent mention of Tom Brokaw and the information there is clearly not an NBC broadcast transcript.

"'My results illustrate that while scholars attribute Puerto Rican emigration to overpopulation and rising unemployment, news articles consistently addressed issues related to employment, while rarely mentioning the impact of overpopulation. In addition, my findings show that articles in the early years of the Great Migration portray migration positively or debate the issue. In the later years, there are signfiicantly more articles that portray migration negatively as well as articles that treated migration neutrally.'" That does not support the material it purports to in the paragraph.
 * Many references do not prove the point for which they are a footnote, e.g. The paragraph ending with "The new migrants gained knowledge and working skills that would serve them well." is linked with a footnote  to http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p105521_index.html. Quotation from that site:


 * For any US Census information, there is no reason not to use the US Census site itself which has plenty of analyses, not the Encyclopedia Britannica or other less direct sources.

I urge you to take seriously other reviewers comments. Mattisse 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Mattisse Thank you, not for the oppose mind you, but for pointing out these things for me. I will look into them. Sometimes we are too blind to see the obvious. Tony the Marine 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed some references, plus trimmed some fat off the article. www.womensmemorial.org/Education/HisHistory.html are the only people who have documented the contributions of not only female Hispanics, but the contributions of women in general and I believe them to be reliable. Tony the Marine 06:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom and XLR8TION. Murcielago 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - You are still using an about.com link: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rosie/which is not a permissible link. Further, I tried several links on that page and they were either a "page no longer here" type message, as for example the NPR link, or went to pages that did not mention Hispanic women. Could you give a direct link to a Rosie the Riveter article that mentions Hispanic women? (I humbly suggest that this is not that important to your article anyway. Rose the Riveter was really geared at white women, as in those days there was no consciousness&mdash;as you are aware&mdash;of minority participation in World War II. The issue of the all black units in that war did not reach public consciousness until much later, so it is hard to believe that Rosie the Riveter was ahead of it's time. In fact, one of your major points is that there was no awareness. Rosie the Riveter material on Hispanic women would be an argument that you are wrong.)
 * Also, could you provide a reference for this statement: "Hispanics who resided in the mainland of the United States and who were fluent in English were assigned to regular military units; otherwise they were assigned to units made up of mostly Hispanics. Those who were of fair skin color were assigned to units made up of Caucasians and those who were of dark skin color were sent to the segregated all-black military units." (I am not saying this is not true, but again, I don't think it it necessary to your main point. Also, it is somewhat ambiguous. What happened to Hispanics who resided on the mainland of the United States and were fluent in English but had dark skin? You are suggesting that they were assigned to regular military units. Is this the case?)
 * Perhaps I could suggest to you that you think about what you want this article to be about. Do you want it to be about discrimination against Hispanics during World World II? Or do you want it to be about the Hispanic contribution to World War II? If is is the latter, then you could find some reliable sources that state, yes discrimination existed. Then you could find a good source or two saying Hispanic contribution is therefor unknown and unreported. Then perhaps you would have a justification for saying, "Although the numbers of Hispanic soldiers is unknown, we have some first-person accounts of individual Hispanic soldiers that suggest that the contributions of Hispanic soldiers was valiant and give some examples. Then you could list the medal winners etc. I do not know if that would pass FA but it would be more focused on the Hispanic participation in World War II, if that is your goal. Mattisse 17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Mattisse, your suggestions are more then welcomed and I will take you up on them. The main focus will be on Hispanic contributions, while the discrimination should only be a sub-subject. I will get eliminate http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rosie/ (I don't know why but, I thought I had)Tony the Marine 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did a lot more trimming. I'm breaking my head, which one is the NPR link? Tony the Marine 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This about.com link, http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rosie/Rosie_the_Riveter_Women_in_the_Factories_of_World_War_II.htm, which is not permissible anyway, has the NPR link on its list of links. Mattisse 12:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, Mattisse, I'm sure that I have already eliminated that link. I went over the links and I haven't been able to pin-point it. If you can, please let me know if you see it and where it is at. The article looks much better with all of the trimming, don't you agree? Tony the Marine 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, My apologies to User's Blnguyen and Recurring dreams, you were right to be concerned about the references. Mia culpa - I have responded to the suggestions. Tony the Marine 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - You need to be very careful about footnotes. The footnote to the War Museum does not say anything about coverage in history books, as far as I can tell, so it should not be included with the footnote. You don't need the history book sentence in there anyway, in my opinion. Mattisse 16:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would reduce the first paragraph to something like this:

Hispanic Americans in World War II fought in every major battle in the European Theatre, from North Africa to the Battle of the Bulge, and in the Pacific Theater of Operations, from Bataan to Okinawa. Hispanics have participated in every U.S. military conflict since the American Revolution. According to the National World War II Museum, between 250,000 and 500,000 Hispanic Americans served in the Armed Forces during WWII. The exact number is unknown as at the time Hispanics were counted as whites. The only racial groups to have separate statistics kept were African-Americans and Asian-Americans. You have a lot of extra stuff that isn't needed and that is not referenced. I think it detracts from your main points. Mattisse 17:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

When a Japanese Imperial Navy carrier fleet launched an unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Hispanic Americans joined the ranks of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps as volunteers or through the draft. They saw active combat in both the European and Pacific Theatres of war and participated on the home front. Hundreds of women joined the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAACs) and Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES), serving  as nurses and in administrative positions. Many worked in the manufacturing plants that produced munitions and material, while the men who usually performed this work were away at war. It repeats a little the first sentence but maybe you can get away with it. Then eliminate the part of the third paragraph you have already covered. Instead, you can give a summary of what the article is going to be about, the facts you do know plus some justification for the personal stories. Mattisse 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Good suggestion and done, but I must give you the credit for the rephrasing.:) Tony the Marine 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - How about this for second paragraph:


 * Will do, Mattisse I truly appreciate your suggestions because they are excellent and within what is expected in Wikipedia. They haven't compromised the message of the article and that is why I am making the changes recommended. I want others to know that I am not making them to sway a change in the oppose votes ( I must admit that support votes are nicer (smile), I have too often seen FAC's people do not change their votes even after the suggestions have been taken into consideration. Tony the Marine 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Supporting, lots of work has been done, issues addressed quickly, politely, and diligently, thank you. I'm also going to take the liberty to add a few tweaks of my own, if you don't like them, feel free to change or revert; I hope they're improvements, but my support doesn't depend on them being kept. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Oppose, I'm afraid, Needs editing by Japanese patriot. :-) It's clearly a labor of love, but a bit too gung-ho, a bit too clearly written by an American patriot. I'd love to support, since there is a lot of good content, but I can hear patriotic music playing as I read much of this article. Some examples :
 * "When a Japanese Imperial Navy carrier fleet launched an unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor" - in the lead? Surely the way the war started didn't make that much of a difference to Hispanic participation in WW2, considering they participated in every war before or since. Note I don't know if it would really hurt to keep because it is part of the intro.
 * It has nothing to do with Hispanic American participation. Yes, it was an important episode for World War 2, but so was the Battle of the Bulge, and Tobruk, and Stalingrad, and D-Day, and the invasion of Poland, and the fall of Berlin, and the bombing of Hiroshima. None of those belong in the lead of this particular article, which should be a summary of the main points of the article. This isn't one of them. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Good point, Done
 * In fact, I'd move "Hispanics have participated in every U.S. military conflict since the American Revolution." out of the lead as well, this article is really about WW2, and this sentence is out of place in that paragraph. It's important, just not lead-important. Note, I would love to keep this. Since most Americans are unaware of the Hispanic contributions in WW II, they are even less aware that Hispanics have made contributions from the founding of the nation. In way this is may way of saying "Hey, guess what? Hispanics have always taken arms for the U.S., not just WW II, the only thing is that you didn't know about because their contributions have always been overlooked". I don't know if I make any sense.
 * I still think it doesn't fit the paragraph, but I can see how it might be important enough for the lead somewhere. If you can figure out a better place to move it, I'd prefer that, but I won't oppose over just this. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Decided to eliminate, doesn't fit in
 * Heh. I do think it belongs somewhere, it is an important bit of data about the participation of Hispanic Americans in US wars in general, clearly worth a sentence. I put it in another section, again not ideal, but I couldn't find a perfect place for it, so better to have it somewhere than nowhere. If you want, you can even move it back to the lead. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Gabaldon, ... displayed extreme courage and initiative ... single-handedly capturing enemy civilian and military personnel. Working alone ... daringly entered ...  frequently in the face of hostile fire ... succeeded ... not only ... vital ... well over ." - that reads like it could be from his award citation, meant to inspire. We're only meant to give facts. Done
 * More on this section:


 * Private First Class (PFC) Guy Gabaldon... PFC Guy Gabaldon (1926–2006) ... he was a Private First Class (PFC) - redundant. Fixed
 * Wikilink Hell to Eternity Done
 * I read a bit more on Gabaldon; it seems like he mostly persuaded the Japanese to surrender by saying they'd be killed otherwise. This article makes it sound like he violently captured over 1000 soldiers by personal combat, one at a time, and the only reason he didn't get a medal of honor like York was bigotry. While bigotry might still have been part of it, if convincing 1000+ people to surrender was a cause for a medal of honor, every commander who wins a big battle and doesn't massacre his captives would have one. By leaving out the word "persuaded" or "convinced", we're misleading by implication. replace word
 * "gave their lives for their country" - died. Done
 * "The outcome of the battle was so stunning" - ahem. I don't think the Japanese would have used that word. Done
 * "In December 1942, a year after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Quesada took the First Air Defense Wing to North Africa in the heat of battle." - In December 1943, Quesada took the First Air Defense Wing to fight in North Africa. Fixed
 * Not really, still mentions Pearl Harbor, which has nothing more to do with Quesada than it does with Patton. Now, Fixed
 * "the greatest invasion in history" - Fixed
 * No, now it just says "considered by some". My point isn't debating whether it is or not, my point is that the article is overly patriotic and gung-ho, and needs to be more objective. It can't help being somewhat gung-ho, since it's about the achievements of soldiers, there is no way to get around "Hero Street", but the least it can do is not inject it unnecessarily. Just give the facts, and wikilink for those who want to know more: provided air cover for the landings on Normandy Beach. Word eliminated
 * "Edubigis and Angelina Sandoval immigrated to the U.S. with a dream of having a better life." - Fixed
 * "their son's request to serve the country." - Eliminated
 * The failure to include any Hispanics in the film has been recognized and criticized by ordinary citizens, Hispanic leaders, and Congressional leaders alike. - important, but shorten and rephrase What do you think will be a better rephrase? Done
 * the starving and outnumbered troops surrendered to the Japanese. The men of the 200th and 515th Battalions laid down their arms after being given a direct order. - combine, unless it was only the 200th and 515th who got an order, and the others merely surrendered Fixed
 * being given a direct ordera - "being given a direct order" or "direct orders" Fixed
 * There are also other issues


 * has an ancestor from a Spanish-speaking Latin America. - dump "a Spanish-speaking", Brazilians are Hispanic too Note, In accordance to U.S. Census, Brazilians, are not considered "Hispanics" since their language is Portuguese (Similar to the people of Surinam). They are, howver considered as "Latinos" or "Latins" since the do come from "Latin-America". You go figure.
 * The Census says anyone is Hispanic who says they are Hispanic. Their suggested definition, however, includes all of South America, without excluding Brazil. 1993 2000 Also, don't forget the context. We're talking the racial prejudice of 1941. Are you honestly going to claim that 1941 people with anti-Hispanic prejudice would make exceptions for Brazilians? It's at least debatable, but this article isn't the place for the debate. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Rephrased
 * "One of the members of the 149th WAAC Post Headquarters Company was Tech4 Carmen Contreras-Bozak, who served in Algiers within General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s theatre headquarters. Tech4 Carmen Contreras-Bozak joined" - join the one-sentence paragraph with the next, and don't repeat her rank or first name. Fixed
 * "rendered overseas duties" - served, or if you like, were stationed Fixed
 * It's not fixed, but not a big deal, I'll live with it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Other Hispanic Servicewomen like Conterras" - don't capitalize Servicewomen, and misspelled name Fixed
 * "among them were Maria Rodriguez-Denton and Sergeant Mary Castro." - contains no information, considering the next two paragraphs say that. Fixed
 * Better. Combine with next paragraph, though, otherwise it's a 1-sentence paragraph. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Done
 * Same for "Two other notable Hispanic submarine commanders were..." - if you don't such a sentence for the first 3, don't do it for the last 2 Fixed
 * "Sergeant Mary Castro was the first Hispanic woman from San Antonio, Texas, to join the WAAC." - that's her distinction? At that rate, we should have a hundred paragraphs like that: the first Hispanic woman from Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, New York to join the WAVES, WAAC, WAAF... Unless she's more notable than that, I'd get rid of the whole mention, unfortunately. Also makes it easier to get rid of the "among them" phrasing, above. :-) Castro eliminated
 * "Hispanic female nurses wanted to volunteer for service, however they were not accepted into the Army or Navy Nurse Corps" - Why not? Good question, my assumption would be that the Dept of Defense, didn't think at the time that bilingual nurses would be needed.
 * In 1944, the Army Nurse Corps (ANC) decided to accept Puerto Rican nurses.- only? Not other Hispanics? Why? Note, the only verfiable source mentions only the PR nurses. There aren't any statements about other Hispanic nurses. Could be that stats were not kept on those who were not from Puerto Rico, similar to what happened to the Hispanics that served in regular Army units.
 * Would be nice to find out, but I couldn't find it myself. No big deal.
 * represented a moral blow - morale? Note, can't find this one, can you do me the honoe of fixing it?
 * Done.
 * Did Quesada actually write "FM 100-20, "Command and Employment of Air Power,"? Part of it? Note the source states (and so does the article) that he and the allied commnders forged FM 100-20, but there is no mention about who were the others, except that Quesdad was the principal force behind the concept.
 * Good enough.
 * "f the 22 families on Second Street," - f? Fixed
 * thos ewho - those who Note, I can't find this one, would you do me the honor of fixing it?
 * Done.
 * Rios Rodriguez ... In an interview, PFC Raul Rios Rodriguez from Puerto Rico - full name first, short name later Fixed
 * He recalls the racial remarks made by a Captain while he was wounded. “That was the first time I was called a smart-ass Mexican,” said Rodriguez, speaking of an incident that occurred in the Philippines. - who was wounded, Rodriguez, or the Captain? What was smart-ass about being wounded? Move "in the Phillipines" to the first sentence, dump "speaking of an incident". Fixed
 * President Truman's military aide, Gen. Harry H. Vaughan joined - comma after Vaughan, or move "Truman's aide," after Vaughan Fixed
 * same place, Senator Johnson is mentioned 3 times in 3 sentences, just Johnson after the first 2. Fixed
 * one of the most notable was Desi Arnaz. Cuban bandleader, Desi Arnaz, - combine the sentences, wikilink the first, not the second mention. Done
 * because a of prior knee injury - of a prior Fixed
 * I'd move Homefront section up after all the other "Types of service" sections, before the "After the war" sections - Honoring and Discrimination Good idea, done
 * 515th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalions from New Mexico ... and the 158th Regimental Combat Team from Arizona. - wikilink both states or neither Fixed
 * These Hispanic and non-Hispanic soldiers endured the 12-day, 85-mile Bataan Death March from Bataan to the Japanese prison camps and remained in captivity for 34 months.[14] They were marched in scorching heat through the Philippine jungle. - move the 34 month captivity after the march sentence. Fixed'
 * The European Theater was subdivided into three areas: the Eastern Front, the Western Front and the Mediterranean Theater. - true, but if you never mention the 3 areas again in the article, why do we care? Note, I thought that some people reading may like to know exactly what was the Europen Theater, if you feel that it should be rephrased let me know again.
 * There's a lot more to the European Theater than just being divided into 3 fronts... that's what the wikilink is for. Yes, still feel it should go. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Eliminated some words
 * some active combat units, such as the 65th Infantry Regiment from Puerto Rico, were made up mostly of Hispanics. One of these units was the 141st Regiment of the 36th Texas Infantry - how about "some active combat units, such as the 65th ... and the 141st ..." ? Done, sounds better.
 * --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, would you reconsider your vote after your concerns are addressed? Just courious. Tony the Marine 23:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's the whole idea. Let me look. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) You got most, a few left, and some new stuff:
 * Lead: Hispanic Americans in World War II fought in every major battle in the European Theatre, from North Africa to the Battle of the Bulge, and in the Pacific Theater of Operations... They saw active combat in both the European and Pacific Theatres of war - redundant. Fixed
 * Lead: According to Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II, published in 2005 by Latino Advocates for Education, Inc., at least 9,170 Hispanic Americans died in the conflict. - Too much detail on the book for the lead. I'd shorten to either "According to Latino Advocates for Education, Inc., at least...", or "According to Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II, at least ...", but reserve the publishing details for later in the article. I admit it also worries me that such an important point is made with reference to an advocacy group, and one for education, rather than military or history, and that the book seems to focus on Mexican Americans, rather than Hispanic Americans, but it's certainly better to have something rather than nothing. Done
 * I see others object to this source as well. Here is a better one, from Senator Robert Menendez: (Microsoft word) http://menendez.senate.gov/pdf/MemorialDayLLLEng.doc "Half a million Latinos served in the Armed Forces during WWII, and more than 9,000 Latinos gave their lives in defense of our country." Here is another better one, the National WW2 Museum: www.nationalww2museum.org/education/education_numbers.html "How many Hispanic Americans served in the U.S. military during WWII? Between 250,000 and 500,000." Don't drop the book altogether, it does get press LA Times official archive, but it's good to have backup. Added Menedez words, Could you check the link for me?
 * Checked. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Sandoval’s were; first of the Sandoval’s to die ; Other families like the Sandoval’s had - remove apostrophes, these are plural not possessive Fixed
 * Not quite, but I got the remaining one. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One family, the Nevarez family, from Los Angeles, California, had a total of eight siblings serving in the Armed Forces. - was this the record? If not, I'd remove "One family", otherwise we're implying there were no others. Done
 * Reference "5 ^ a b c" has no text. Fixed'
 * The Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II reference has a "retrieved" date but no URL link. If it isn't a URL, it doesn't need a "retrieved" date. Does it have an ISBN? Fixed
 * Reference "16 ^ [1] Ralph Rodriguez" needs a title, and don't put SARA KUNZ all in caps. Fixed
 * "Sacrifice of the Sandoval families: " - I think these 5 words can go. It seems like yet another way to squeeze in another section, there is plenty of organization in this article. The fact the rest of the Hero Street section is about the Sandovals speaks for itself. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Fixed


 * Comment - I believe it is a FAC rule that images are supposed to be set at default size. Mattisse 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Done, You did it yourself, thanks Tony the Marine 00:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerns have been taken care of, It looks like new Tony the Marine 00:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Changed from oppose above. Thanks to much work by AnonEMouse and a great attitude on the part of Tony the Marine, this article, covering an important and neglected topic, has been very much improved. I believe it  warrants FA status.    Mattisse 16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Two things - (A) what is the status of the article with regard to unreliable sources? (B) Tony posted on my talk page about Michael's comments above. I gave him some specific advice for how to handle it, but I don't see this incorporated into the article. Raul654 17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Hi Raul, good to see you. A. Taken care of, B. User:AnonEMouse, who is an experienced FAC editor and a neutral party (not Hispanic), vetted the entire article, checking references, material emphasized, and everything else. Answers in your talk page. Tony the Marine 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support -much improved since first nominated.Rlevse 00:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For such a controversial topic, I'm not satisfied that the general level of referencing (WP:RS) represents the "best work of Wikipedia". Sorry, but unless some references (as noted by Blnguyen) are changed to minimize this problem, I'm opposing this article getting FAC status. Also, thw quotes sourced using [67], [69] and [70] are pointless, as it isn't intergral to the context (or started by "He stated," etc.), and it's merely citing what you've reworded in the paragraph above. The overuse of quotes in that section look a little amateur, to be honest.  Daniel  05:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment all of the referencing concerns of User:Blnguyen have been taken care of as witnessed by users: Mattisse, AnonEMouse and SandyGeorgia all of which are experienced FAC editors and neutral. I hope that you understand that official documentation of the experiences of these men were not kept and therefore, we must depend on the documented interviews to provide information on the discrimination which went on and was known, but was never spoken about in public. Tony the Marine 05:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.