Talk:Military history of Puerto Rico/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)