Talk:Boricua Popular Army

Good article passed

Nice article; well written and comprehensive. Would like to see some citations in the table at the bottom, but otherwise have no complaints. Laïka 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor objection

I agree that overall it is a good article, but I think the first paragraph of the Background section needs some work.

I have three major objections.

1) The citation for the paragraph, "Iriarte, Luis (2005-12-17). El combate del Asomante - 12 de agosto de 1898 (Spanish). Retrieved on 2007-06-05.", refers to a page which does not appear to contain alot of evidence which justifies the summation presented in the paragraph. In fact, none of the sentences in that first paragraph make claims easily supportable from the cited evidence.

2) The description of the battle continues past the point to which the battle is relevant to this article.

3) The final sentence of this paragraph is poorly written.

"However, the stoppage of military action by Spain on (August 12, 1898) put an end to what could potentially become a bloodbath, in an otherwise smooth military campaign that produced few casualties on the American side."

a) "potentially become a bloodbath" is not encyclopedic style. It is certainly not well understood that this battle was nearly disasterous, and if so, for whom? Total casualties from the fighting do not justify this characterization of a battle which must have been based on the sizes of the forces involved and the low casualties, very weakly pursued by either side. b) Technically, the battle ended when the participants learned of the general session of hostilities.

I generally don't understand what the relevance of this section is, and think any description of the battle would be better served by a separate entry with greater detail.

Given the lack of evidence for the writer's description of the battle provided in the citation, and the subject matter I'm inclined to think that the given account is actually based on material from the Boricua Popular Army itself - perhaps the sort of battle romanticization typical of revolutionary causes (see 'Bunker Hill' or 'Trenton' for American examples). If so, such material is still relevant to the article, but its source and potential bias should be explicitly identified. Linking to a page which gives a Spainish centered account of the battle which provides little in the way of evidence for the given partisan account of the battle isn't good enough.

GA Review — kept

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 10:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast. Article is full or errors, anyone with 1/2 a brain can see that. Check them out. If anything, seems a *downgrade* is quite appropriate until article can be outfitted with meaningful, verifiable information - not just stuff you got to take for granted because that's how big-mouth Caribeean HQ wants it. Who the hell is he anyway, and what the hell is he talking about 'the Spanish one'? Did he take 1st grade English? Why so psychotic cowboy? At ease soldier, at ease. You'veGotToBeKidding (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, my big mouth may be forced to block your behind if you keep up the personal attacks. This is to discuss the article, ok kid? By the way, its the Spanish reference. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I will look into the allegations later today. However, I would like to remind everyone to remain "civil" and the personal attacks are not permitted here. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Background" section seems fine in giving the reader an idea as to the origin of the name "Macheteros". The reference cites the fact that the writers grandfather belonged to the "voluntarios" criollos who fought alongside the Spanish forces against the U.S. Forces. The Spainish Army, which was ill-equiped, certainly could not provide adequate arms to the volunteers who as in the oposite case of the Intentona de Yauco had to arm themselves with machettes. It is also interesting and revalant that the Spanish-American War be mentioned as to give the reader an insight as to the resentment that some sectors in Puerto Rico's society felt and still feel as to the occupation of the island by the Americans.

1. I checked Reference #1 and it passed as a reliable verifiable source. I did make some minor copyedits to some paragraphs

2. "With cells (usually consisting of between six and ten members) in the United States and other countries"- I Would like to see a source for this, otherwise remove.

3. In the "International terrorism laws and arguments of patriotism" section, both references #14 and #15 are "dead links" and need to be replaced.

User:You'veGotToBeKidding, I agree with the keep GA review, because these are minor issues which can be taken care of and should have been discussed in a civil manner without the bad attitude and name calling that went on. Just a reminder, you can be blocked from editing because of personal attacks. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Caribbean H.Q. has addressed the situation and taken care of all concerns. As far as I'm concerned this discussion is now concluded and the "GA" stays as is. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Area of Operations

Area of Operation refers to "the area in which the faction operated" Template:Infobox war faction. It does *not* refer to the countries with which the organization has strong political bonds nor to countries from which it receives strong financial, military, or moral support. As such I have removed Cuba, since no citation so far, Economist or not, represents that Cuba is a country in which, like the US and Puerto Rico, Macheteros has perpetrated its bombing, etc., activities. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is the only one available for such an organization. Naturally, the EPB is not waging a large-scale or official war, so the format is merely a facsimile. As a matter of fact, they have remained inactive for years except for a few statements released from time to time. Machetero commandos have been linked (i.e. trained) to Cuban intelligence for decades, that is a known theory. Anyways, I have added it to the "allies" section. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The paragragh in question from the The Economist says:

"The raid was not all Mr Ojeda Ríos's work: he had acted with 18 members of the Macheteros (machete-wielders, or cane-cutters), an outfit he had formed in 1976. More formally known as the Boricua People's Army, they were an underground paramilitary group dedicated to freeing Puerto Rico from American 'colonial' rule. Although they are said to have cells throughout the United States and even in other countries--the links with Cuba are supposedly strong--the Macheteros have never been numerous. Their number these days is put at about 1,100."

I agree with you that the author's intention is to say that Cuba is one of their allies, and not that Cuba is a place where Macheteros has "operated" on (which is really what the author's sentence ended up saying with his "with [operative] cells throughout the US and even other countries -- Cuba included -- blah blah blah...", if I may paraphrase it). Because of this ambiguity, I would tend to leave the whole Cuba thing out, lest I be accused of wp:or.

I am not particularly impressed with the author's writing skills and am disappointed with the author's obvious lack of serious background research: the whole article contains a significant amount of speculation, possibly for effect. Just as an example, the author says "the links with Cuba are supposedly strong", when the author could had said, (for instance) "The Washington Post reported on January 13, 2001 that a joint 1999 FBI-CIA six-month investigation had confirmed that Macheteros commandos are trained by elements linked to Cuban intelligence". Because of this failure to report facts, I suspect the author is just speculating about the Cuban connection. I am just not sold... Let's face it, if there really was a link, the CIA would know about it; and if there was a "strong" link, the CIA would both, know about it plus it would be reason enough for an invasion of Cuba. Let's just not go there, ok?... You rightly call the Cuban connection a known theory; I too believe it is a theory, and this is why I would object to entering it as fact into the Infobox. The article is neither accurate, nor credible, and the Cuba part is dubious.

I wished I could help with a citation that sensibly connects Macheteros and Cuba, but I am afraid it does not exist. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Until such time when a link between Macheteros and Cuba can be made, not thru suppositions but thru credible, factual information, I have removed the Cuba connection claim.

You have probably heard of Jorge Ricardo Masetti. Haven't you? Well, Masetti himself commented in a book that Castro provided financial support for White Eagle. When someone with those kind of connections within the Cuban government confirms its involvement, the nature of the connection is left unambiguous. The matter at hand was if the commandos received training by Cuban intelligence, which is something that no Cuban official has admitted. Either way, such a thing is difficult to source, so I'm no going to pursue that. By the way, El Mundo published an article about the matter years ago, you can probably find it online. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The argument here is not about what I believe to be the truth, but about following wp:verifiability policies. If Masetti's or EL Mundo is documented and can be verified, then it passes the wiki tests, otherwise it cannot be used either. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that you are as confrontational as always, discuss before undoing. Two easy searches ([1][2]) turn up supporting proof. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Though blogs are not acceptable in this place, I think it's fair to leave Cuba there. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Claim of cells throughout - dubious

The article mentions just the one Hartford, CT robbery, yet it reverberates the dubious The Economist article's claim that Macheteros has cells throughout the United States. This is a monumental jump from fact to tale, and I had to disagree with the inclusion of the statement in the article. If anyone feels very strong against this, and can subtantiate it, maybe a compromise can be reached.

To illustrate: I could say that Bank of America has branches throughout the US, but would it be fair to say that Banco Popular has branches throughout the US? Maybe yes, maybe no, despite Popular having branches in NY, Fl, CA, IL, TX, and probably a few other places. But to say that Macheteros has cells THROUGHOUT the US, it's dubious to put it mildly, especially if no other locations that CT is even mentioned.

One more illustration: remember Mr. "Cuco"? The big, ugly madman hiding in the dark places adults didn't want you to go to? As a kid you believed in it and it scared the heck out of you, right? but when you grew old enough to learn the truth, that sort of stuff would no longer scare you, ok? Likewise, The Economist is also the victim of a similar scared mentality: that when an organization is seen here and seen there (Say NY and Chicago) it becomes a lot easier -- even if they don't know it for a fact -- to claim that it is everywhere -- throughout -- because they WANT to believe it is so.

Again, I think we can come to a compromise that draws it as it is, rather than use The Economist's fabulous claims. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the problem is the word "throughout", just remove it. "Cells in the United States" should do it. That word has simply been in there since the very beginning. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

More objections

Not so sure of the "good article" status, but perhaps Im not the one to judge it, and lately Im not surprised at all for several articles in WP (mostly articles about wars and conflicts wich claims to be neutral when they're heavily biased. Fortunately, it seems that this is not the case). Filiberto Ojeda Ríos was executed/killed-in-action by the FBI, not simply "deceased". And the image at the article is the Macheteros logo, but not its flag, wich can be seen here or here. Hope someone could upload a version of the flag to illustrate the article. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"from us to them"

In the lead it features a quote from Ronald Fernandez saying FBI terrorism charges "shift the blame for any attacks on U.S. policy or personnel from us to them". I'm not totally sure who "them" is and I have no idea who "us" is. Might we instead just paraphrase what Fernandez is saying?

Another logo

Any chance File:Ejercito Popular Boricua logo.jpg should be added to this article rather than deleted, now that it is not used in Filiberto Ojeda Ríos? - Jmabel | Talk 17:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

EPB symbols

It's not a "flag" that should be on this page, it's a logo or symbol or logos or symbols.

The 1st symbol. the machete with a star in the middle,
The 2nd symbol. the EPB symbol with a PR flag inside the letter "b"

The other sources for the machete logo / symbol:

• https://archive.org/details/los-macheteros-the-wells-fargo-robbery-an-ronald-fernandez/mode/2up
• https://archive.org/details/losmacheteroswellsfargorobberyandtheviolentstruggleforpuertoricanindependence/page/n11/mode/2up
• The FBI files - mostly show the 2nd symbol (which was used on the groups letterhead.

The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

References