Jump to content

Talk:Latin American Defense Organization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copied text

[edit]

Just a heads-up, copied text on this page (from the Young Lords page) was also written by me. Spookyaki (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Latin American Defense Organization/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 19:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sonnyvalentino (talk · contribs) 11:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


This is my first such review, so you might take it with a pinch of salt. Welcome to ask for a second opinion if you'd like one, I won't be offended.

The writing is clear, encyclopaedic in style, and the citations that I checked were accurate. Illustrations would be nice, but per WP:GACN if there are no illustrations available the criterion is satisfied, and I can't immediately find any. If you were feeling super-keen (this would not be necessary for GA status), you could reach out to Clara Lopez and ask her if her father would be willing to release some of his photos to Wikimedia via the Wikipedia:File_upload_wizard.

The only question on the WP:GACR6 criteria for me would be 3a: whether it is broad enough in its coverage. It is not comprehensive, but that is not required for GA status. Arguably it is "broad enough" now. However, here are some notes. First, on the existing content:

In terms of broadening the article's scope and coverage, I'd suggest reviewing this source, which seems potentially important. Interview of Lopez-Zacarias (so different version of his name) by Jimenez.

Am currently doing so. Will update you/possibly the article when I have completed watching the interview. Spookyaki (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the brief PDF has a cool anecdote, maybe more appropriate for the YL article, about a mob-connected real estate agent pointing a gun at them. But there's a 90 min interview it would be worth watching and noting down useful stuff re LADO (you would ideally have the time signature for each citation I think).
  • They had a newspaper. Are archives anywhere apart from the one issue Staudenmeier mentions?
Awesome. Great to see the changes so far. Lmk when you're done with the interview. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done with the interview. A lot of stuff ended up getting added (so many edits; I probably should have worked in a sandbox again, but eh). I'll let you read over the updated article. Let me know what you think. Spookyaki (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found the new content interesting! I hope someone does an interview with Olga some time. I've made a few changes, none important: removed the reference to anti-electoralism in the intro, specified the founding location in the Infobox, added a few categories, added a paragraph going a bit more into the official reaction to the riots. In the Activity section I changed phrasing here and there (e.g. re "pilot program," I think he saw the boycott as a pilot in itself, rather than proposing that there be a separate pilot program) and the order a bit, but all the content is essentially the same. I added an additional line on him dodging surveillance, because I thought it was a nice detail. I added a reference to an additional book for more details on the riot.
You might want to give it another pass in case I've inadvertently introduced errors, or anything else you don't approve of. But from my POV I'd be happy to give it the Good Article status. If/when you're fine with that too I'll go ahead. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I made some adjustments. Firstly, I reworded some segments to ensure a consistent and encyclopedic tone. I also rearranged several segments. It probably should have been noted in the original article that the Molotov cocktail arrest actually occurred before LADO was founded (in Fall 1966). This required me to split that section up between the "Foundation and ideology" and "Activies" section. Other stuff ended up being moved too. Finally, I reinstated the original version of the final paragraph, which places events in chronological order. I did make some adjustments to it, however, to clarify the origins of the name and the use of literary present tense.
Also, please note that the use of "Obed" rather than "López" is intentional. Per MOS:SAMESURNAME, "to distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity". I think there are at least three people with the surname López in the article: Obed, Omar, and Clara. There are some instances where I thought it made sense to use both names for clarification, but for the most part, I tried to use their forenames after they were introduced. Spookyaki (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, largely looks good. Thanks for the pointer on style regarding names. My only query would be regarding that last paragraph in Activity. I think you're saying that the Daily Journal article referring to the two Red Squad agents "invading" the office and the sources discussing the 1970 arson are referring one and the same event. I admit this is possible, but I do not think this is certain:
  • There's no unambiguous source identifying them.
  • It would be odd - "burying the lede" in journalistic terms - if the ACLU alleged the police burned down an office, but this was not mentioned in the story. It would be by far the most sensational allegation.
  • And likewise, if there was evidence good enough to put before a court that the Red Squad did the arson, why isn't that mentioned more definitively by other sources, e.g. Hinojosa?
  • How would they have known that it was two Red Squad officers who burned it down unless they saw (and perhaps recognised) them? And if they saw them, surely it would not have taken 4-5 years to file a lawsuit, given the gravity of arson (the Daily Journal says the court case was filed in 1974, the ACLU site says 1975). How would they know exactly what files were taken, as opposed to having been incinerated? On the other hand, two plain clothes police officers barging into an office, picking up a list is the sort of thing that would have been in the ambit of (as I understand it) ordinary behaviour for CPD at the time, and it's maybe easier to see it getting rolled into a larger lawsuit years later.
  • So in that case perhaps they were two different incidents: either the office "invasion" happened before the arson, or they later got a new office (maybe in the cultural centre)?
  • I admit there are ways to make it fit: Perhaps it was a speculative accusation on the part of the ACLU designed to generate "discovery" or political pressure and they had no real evidence. Perhaps the evidence emerged years later somehow. Perhaps the journalist was bad at their job or the paper was too close to the CPD to print such an inflammatory allegation. Perhaps the fire burned the furniture but not the files, etc.
So in retrospect I should have just laid that out here before making the edit so we could discuss it, apologies. But what I was trying to do with that par was not claim that they were definitely the same incident. What do you think? Sonnyvalentino (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... That's a good point. Well now I'm not sure. That was an assumption on my part. It could still be plausible, assuming that it took four years for them to build a sufficient case to attempt to pin the attack on the two Red Squad officers, or to get the ACLU's backing. Here's what I propose:
However, according to a story printed in the Daily Journal, it was mentioned in a 1974 lawsuit put forward by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the Red Squad. In the lawsuit, it was alleged that two Red Squad officers ransacked LADO's offices, seizing a list of roughly "300 [LADO] members and supporters" during the operation. The ACLU ultimately lost the case on appeal.[b]
[b] It is unclear if this is referring to the 1970 incident or a separate, unrelated incident.
What do you think? Spookyaki (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So atm I find the first sentence a bit hard to parse. I'm not sure if "it" refers to LADO or the 1970 incident, and what statement "however" is qualifying. In the current edit, the prior sentence is about what factors led to LADO ceasing operations. So "however" sounds like the sentence will call Obed's analysis into question, but the rest of the sentence doesn't really do that - unless "it" refers to the 1970 incident, and the point is being made that maybe that was really the cause of operations ending (which would seem too POV). Or it could be about the sentence before that, so the implied point would be that LADO ("it") was party to a 1974 lawsuit so perhaps it didn't really cease to exist in 1973. But then why say it definitively just earlier?
I'd suggest if you're running with the par as it is up to that point ("... organization's decline"), you could dodge these issues and continue:
In a subsequent lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, it was alleged that two Red Squad officers had ransacked LADO's offices, seizing a list of roughly "300 [LADO] members and supporters" during the operation.[b] The ACLU ultimately lost the case on appeal.
[b] It is unclear if this referred to the 1970 arson incident or a separate incident.
My logic for "subsequent" would be to avoid having to mention the year the case was filed, but the alternative would be to refer to the two possible dates (13 Nov 1974 or 30 March 1975). Guess you could also add them as another lower-alpha note. I don't think you need to mention the Daily Journal by name in this case, unless there's a WP policy I've missed (very possible). Would not say "unrelated" incident, because it does seem possible that the incidents were related by motive. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My idea with "however" was essentially to say that despite the group's dissolution, it was mentioned in a later lawsuit. I think you're probably right that it's not entirely clear, though. I mentioned the Daily Journal by name because it's bordering on being a primary source. Newspapers are a bit tricky, and I wanted to clarify that while this was what the newspaper said, it hasn't necessarily been scrutinized by historians. I don't think that's strictly policy, though. Anyway, made some adjustments. Let me know what you think. Spookyaki (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I'm going to say that does it and I'll make the adjustment to GA status. Great job. Thanks for the opportunity to learn about LADO! Sonnyvalentino (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, of course I should say I haven't watched the video interview. So it might be there's something linking them there. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't think this incident was mentioned in the interview. Spookyaki (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions I had about the subject matter when reading the article::

  • How big was LADO? How many activists/organisers etc.?
  • What distinguished its founders? e.g. were they already community leaders/leftists, etc? Were they parents, people in their '20s, etc.? (Lopez was 27 per his daughter.) Staudenmeir (p191) notes a former welfare caseworker, which seems important.
    • Aside from Obed López, I can't find much about them. It's possible there's more in the interview. For now, have added more information about López and split off a new section "Foundation and ideology". Spookyaki (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did its money come from, e.g. for rent?
    • Not entirely sure. At least some seems to have come from fundraising (added a section about a newspaper ad: However, according to an advertisement placed in the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)'s newspaper New Left Notes, the organization "suffer[ed] from a lack of funds and a shortage of full-time organizers" as of December 1966 and was seeking assistance.). Some may have also come from the McCormick Theological Seminary, though I do not know of any sources that directly confirm this. Spookyaki (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were its political influences? e.g. was its anti-electoralism an ideological thing, or was it a sort of pragmatic reaction to the fact that they didn't have the resources or connections to do electoral politics? Were any thinkers important? Was community owned institutions a socialist thing? Later, Staudenmeier is cited as saying they drew on strategic approaches of the Civil Rights Movement. Could more concrete information/evidence on this be incorporated earlier into the narrative?
    • Fernández identifies opposition to the contemporary SACC as the origin of its anti-electoralist and anti-ethnic-nationalist stances. I've included a bit about this, though I'm not sure what specifically about the SACC's platform caused the rift on electoral politics, and there is not much info out there about them as an organization. If I had to guess, LADO probably viewed the impact of electoral politics as being limited due to distrust of both Democrats and Republicans, in the same way that many leftists today do (maybe even more so given the continued prevalence of patronage/political machines at the time; certainly there was no love lost between them and Democrat Richard J. Daley). However, that's just speculation. The explanation that they didn't have the resources also seems plausible, but there isn't a ton of information out there. Spookyaki (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and the Civil rights movement strategies. I assume he's referring to boycotts, building occupations, picketing, and other means of nonviolent resistance. However, I don't think he explicitly says what he's referring to in the article. Spookyaki (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ended up removing the electoral politics claim, since it isn't really expounded upon by Fernández and doesn't seem consistent with their work with the Paul Douglas campaign (per the interview). Spookyaki (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did LADO end? Article identifies Red Squad activity around that time, so implication is that perhaps this was important. But Lopez (p26) reckons the attempted infiltration was "foiled." Would be good to clarify. Lopez (p25) also has a thicker, perhaps more interesting narrative about the repression: community members being scared to associate with them due to red scare, Mayor Daley (allegedly) deliberately setting the gangs against them, inc one gang member threatening him and two other organisers with a gun. But also alot of activist groups just run out of steam, and sometimes community organisations become victims of their own success as issues are solved (per Alinsky). Are there explanations in other sources?
    • Regarding the thicker analysis in the article, I have moved up the timeline and created a new paragraph outlining the impact of red-baiting/the Red Squad/the GUI specifically. Regarding the organization's demise, I'm not 100% sure. The closest I was able to get was in Apostles of Change. I'll quote the section for you:

In the days after the low-income housing proposal from the coalition was rejected by the city, activists continued to pay a heavy price.On March 23, 1970, the LADO offices were ransacked and burned to the ground. Their files and furniture—all that López had worked to build in the wake of the Division Street riots in 1966—were lost forever. And as quickly as their fame and fortune had risen, the Young Lords started their own steady decline in the spring of 1970...

This seems to imply that it was the ransacking/destruction of their offices that did them in, though it doesn't quite say so directly. For now, I've added a sentence that say According to Hinojosa, this initiated a period of "decline" for the organization. This may be a stretch. He's technically talking about the Young Lords when he says "decline", but you could also interpret it to say that he's talking about both organizations. Let me know what you think. I also added a section about an ACLU lawsuit that potentially ties the office attack with the Red Squads. Spookyaki (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • One cited academic says LADO inspired the Young Lords (any specific evidence?), but Young Lords started earlier per your other article. So presumably the idea is that they inspired the YL transition from a street gang to a political organisation. Would be good to clarify and perhaps expand on this. Would perhaps help if the YL article itself was clearer in identifying the organisation's first explicitly political activity. The implication is that it happened around 1968. When exactly was Jimenez released?
    • He was released in the "summer of 1968", per Fernández. The transition into a political organization was a process that took place throughout 1968, I think. Major events include the activist conference they attended, the LPCA meeting, and the adoption of the Ten-Point Program. As for evidence, I added the following: Fernández notes that the Young Lords supported various LADO programs, notably by providing security services for their welfare union, contributing to the Young Lords' politicization. She also notes that Young Lords member Omar López consulted with his brother Obed before joining the Young Lords. Spookyaki (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of (very much non-comprehensive) thoughts on the Young Lords article in case useful:

  • An issue is that much of the Background section covers things that happen after the beginning of the origins subsection, so the reader has to skip forward then back in time. Would suggest to make it more directly chronological. Background should run up to about 1959 (and be imported as a subsection under the Chicago Young Lords section probably, because it's only about Chicago). Stuff about police brutality in the 1960s should be included in Origins subsection, i.e. because it's part of the organisation's evolution. (You could retitle it "Street gang to political organisation" to give the reader a bit of a signpost).
  • There are some cool Young Lords images on Wikimedia Commons and in the linked article about Jimenez (which could maybe a source of some bits to integrate into this one), but perhaps you think the copyright situation isn't as clear as it would need to be? In which case fair enough.
    • Could add a few more, sure. I would absolutely love to add the photo from Jiménez's article, because I believe it actually depicts the Armitage Avenue church occupation. However, because the picture is Fair use, I believe it can only be used on one page (Jiménez's). Would also love to use the Central Committee photo, but unfortunately, I don't think it's actually public domain, since it was taken in 1970. Spookyaki (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's what I've got for now. It seems that the question of whether an article is broad enough is not super scientific, so let me know what you think. We can either ask for a second opinion, or if you'd like to make additions we can put it on hold for whatever period of time you'd prefer.

Thank you for taking the review! Will look at the Young Lords stuff in a bit, but have addressed some of the concerns with comprehensiveness on this article. Spookyaki (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, it should be held. That's generally standard procedure for most GA reviews, unless it's obvious that the article cannot be made to meet GA criteria in a reasonable time frame. Spookyaki (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_American_Defense_Organization&oldid=1286125719"