Talk:Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña

Changes

On what basis was the number changed from 50 to 120 and the one external link removed? john k 06:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to the NY Post [1], FALN had planted over 100 bombs in NYC during the 1970s. That alone negates the 50 bombs that once was in the article. Several more bombs were planted in Chicago, plus NYC had a few more bombs go off in the early 1980s. The Fraternal Order of Police have the number at 130. [2] The US Senate when condemning Clinton for clemency of 16 members of FALN had the number at 130[3], as did the US House of Rep. [4] Other sources have it higher than 135, others have it at 120 or lower. Since 120 seems to be in the ballpark, 50 doesn't.

As for the removal of links, they were all dead. Now, if you want to repost them, go ahead.Lokifer 06:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article doesn't say anything about FALN except that its a terrorist organization and lists "terrorist" activities. The article doesn't mention anything really about what the organization is / was - their politics - other then a free Puerto Rico - really doesn't mention anything.

Now it does :) - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is mostly well-written, but there are some issues. FALN Pardons of 1999 should be a subsection of the general history section, not separate. Incidents is also a part of the history, but considering it's on table format (looks good, btw) it is fine as a separate section immediately after History. Political position should be its own section, ideally titled "ideology" or something more appropriate. The contents of the section at present don't elucidate with context the position of the group on any political issue. They simply intimate their ideology. This should probably come before the history of the group, as understanding their ideology prior to reading a chronological recount of their deeds is important.

 Done ([5]) --Agüeybaná 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: The use of inline refs is good, but some of the formatting for notes is vague. Numbers 11, 13, 14, and 15 all give a url and a retrieval date, but not any info on what the actual source is. This is inappropriate, and we need to know more than just the title of a source's article in order to judge its fitness as a reliable source. Just a url doesn't tell us if a source has fact checking and editorial review.

 Done ([6] [7] [8] [9]) --Agüeybaná 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Seems to cover all relevant points concisely.

4. Neutral point of view?: In the beginning of the article, it defines the FALN as a "clandestine paramilitary organization". That characterization is accurate, but later the article unequivocally admits that the acts they carried out were terrorism. If they were classified as a terrorist organization by any official body such as the FBI, or any notable individual such as the Clintons, then this needs to be mentioned for the sake of neutrality. I'm not saying the definition needs to be changed in the intro, but if it exists an attributed factoid calling the FALN a terrorist organization needs to be present. This is similar to such contested "terrorist organizations" such as the ALF.

 Done ([10] [11]) --Agüeybaná 21:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Article stability? Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.

6. Images?: Present and accounted for with proper licenses.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^Talk 20:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold completed; passed GA nomination

I just want to sincerely congratulate you both. Never have I had editors so quickly and efficiently work to improve an article during a hold. Good work! VanTucky ^Talk 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for review. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WSJ article

I added one sentence and a reference to a recent WSJ article on the pardons. The anon keeps removing it. I am not in a mood for the edit war. Please voice your opinion here if the sentence has a place to be on this page. Mhym (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I support keeping the information. Seems relevant enough. --Agüeybaná 23:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

i support the addition.--Overhere2000 (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)