" 

 *Being distasteful represented poor judgment and, granted, it may not be breaking any policy or guideline. But by shying away from categorically identifying the the political party of each of the 9 original individuals (by original here I mean pre-Tony), as you were asked to do above, you are not helping your cause. Your POV + IMBALANCE + UNDUE WEIGHT or other related accusations above, are very serious charges, but so far you have failed to substantiate your POV accusation with hard facts that, in the Wikipedia tradition, can be independently verified WP:V by the rest of us. As such, you are incorrect in your statement above that an imbalance exists because you have failed to show such imbalance other than pointing that the 2 of 2 elected officials were Democrats. The ""2 of 2 are Democrats"" is something than in and of itself was not POV since (see below) statistically 2 of 2 Puerto Ricans vote Democrat and (statistically again) 0 of 2 Puerto Ricans vote Republican. That is, you need a sampling of, at least, 3 Puerto Ricans to  statistically  start to approach the point where you can say that 1 of 3 Puerto Ricans vote Republican - thus it is actually closer to 1 in 4, that's the idea. 

 :On several occasions above, and again now, you have quite assertively accussed others (both by specific name and ""others"" in the generality of the word) of not acting in good faith, yet you seem to miss that a group of editors here have pointed out the distastefulness, absurdity, and baselessness of your POV Infobox claim - and which has dragged everyone here to this disruption of the building of the encyclopedia.  However, and let me be perfectly clear on this, your action of bringing up this POV infobox accussation is not -as you claimed above- simply an innocuous ""concern"" that you were raising. Let's make no mistake: you broke the WP:Good faith behavioral guideline, both by asumming that others acted in bad faith when they created the Infobox, as well as by accusing others of having created an Infobox that was purposedly, intentionally, and maliciously gerrymandered to include members of the Democratic Party, and ONLY members of the Democratic party. No such conspiracy existed.  After having lit a fire and displayed a horrendous lack of good faith yourself in bringing on the accusation of Infobox POV, you have had the courage of accusing others of lack of wp:good faith. This lack of clean hands leaves little room for sympathy towards your claim, at least from my perspective. 

 :For example, you have been taken to task for not performing at least the minimal level of homework required to share with us HOW you ended up concluding that all 9 original individuals are indeed members of the Democratic party. In this area, your response so far has been: SILENCE. This tactic of ""SILENCE"" is doing a lot in helping me move against supporting your claim, RightCowLeftCoast, and very little in favor of changing my ""Keep-as-is"" position above. At best, and after ""reading between the lines"", I am starting to believe that your claim incorrectly identified your real concern: maybe your concern was not that the 9 individuals were ALL Democrats, but that the 2 elected officials were BOTH Democrats (something that would be a non-issue anyway, See below.). If this is the case, you never articulated it that way (or that clearly), and has lead to considerable needless arguments back and forth. And if this is the case, it would also explain your silence when challenged to provide WP:RS the party affiliation of all 9 individuals. Was that it? 

 :In any event, you have so far failed to convince me that there exists any merit in the POV Infobox accusation that your claim makes for these other reasons as well: 
 :*(1) You have failed to provide evidence that the party affiliation of the 9 original individuals was indeed Democrat so that we can independently verify your claim. Your response to this: SILENCE 
 :*(2) You incorrectly identified the Republican Luis Fortuño as a viable alternative to one of the 9 spots, reducing my credibility on your expertise on this subject since Luis Fortuño is not a Puerto Rican in the US. In effect, you left me thinking: Why should I listen to someone that fails so miserably on something so basic? Your response: SILENCE  
 :*(3) Your POV accusation was proven faulty in that what you called the ""posting"" in question (HERE) is in fact an edit which involves no changes relative to the party affiliation of the 9 individuals when compared to the previous edit. Your response to this: SILENCE  
 :*(4) You have so far failed to defend your position for need for ""political balance"" (where, presumably, the Republican party is accounted for in the infobox) in light of the fact that most P