# Talk:Afro–Puerto Ricans

There should a spanish version, so Puerto Ricans back in the island, can see this and learn more of the African side of Puerto Rican culture.

Why no photo of him in the Infobox? There are at least two in his WP article.Parkwells (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The section following abolition of slavery likens freed slaves who sold produce from their plots to sharecroppers in the US, but said that unlike in the US, they did not receive "40 acres and a mule." Freedmen in the US did not receive 40 acres and a mule after the war, which is why so many of those in rural areas had to fall back on sharecropping or tenant farming to survive. While this idea of divvying up plantations to give former slaves land allotments was popular in some quarters, it did not take place after the war. In a few occupied areas during the war, such as the Sea Islands off South Carolina and Georgia, slaves were allocated property to farm but, after the war, such holdings were generally returned to the legal owners. In some cases, slaves worked as sharecroppers - farming the land owned by another for a share of the crops; in others, they moved into towns or cities to take up trades for wages.Parkwells (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Although the title of "African immigration to Puerto Rico" falls in line with the other articles describing other ethnic groups in Puerto Rico, the title does not fall in line with the history that the article explains. Forced slavery isn't immigration, and voluntary arrival thereafter would be considered immigration. Rather than having the article fall in line with the other Puerto Rican ethnic group pages, it should fall in line with other Latin American/African diaspora pages that title the article "Afro-Cuban" for example.
I suggest this article's title be changed to *Afro-Puerto Rican* in accordance with the other Latin American African population pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.193.228 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 
I AGREE, this article should be called "Afro-Puerto Rican". Immigration incurs that it happened after colonization which is incorrect. Puerto Rico is no different than all the other Latin American countries who had slaves during colonial times. I'm going to request a move. Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I could move it to a title more suitable such as "The history of the Afro-Puerto Rican", which is what it is. Agreed? Tony the Marine (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
So much talk, yet when I make a suggestion and asked for an agreement, both of you above say nothing. So, what's the deal? If I am not going to hear from any of you, then the title will stay as is. This is because the governing committee of those who grant the "good article" status to an article granted the article its' good status under the current title. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Tony the Marine, I had replied to your message that you had left me on my talk page moments ago answering your question whether it should be "History of Afro-Puerto Ricans" or just "Afro-Puerto Ricans" by saying:,
Thank you for taking the time to write to me and considering this move, while acknowledging my interest in the subject. In this case, I believe that less is more. The beauty about Latin America is that it shares a certain unity, as it was born into a "New World" with a mixture of many proud races and cultures. The simplicity here keeps the reader involved and can easily make the transition between "Afro-Cuban", "Afro-Puerto Rican", "Afro-Brazilian" etc. For Puerto Ricans of African descent, the acknowledgement as a "current" ethnic group is crucial, rather then being looked at as "historical." Looking over the demographics of Puerto Rico, the Afros in Puerto Rico make up a strong number. As a result, I just would think the title would be more fitting as Afro-Puerto Rican. Thanks again! Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Savvyjack23, Afro-Puerto Rican it will be. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Excellent job Tony the Marine; thanks!

I've been paying closer attention to the sources cited in Wikipedia articles after a friend brought to my attention some cases where Wikipedia articles cite sources to back up assertions which themselves cite the very same Wikipedia article as its source (in effect such articles cite themselves as the source of thrur claims). There is a problem with sources cited in Wikipedia articles in general. I get the sense few bother to evaluate the credibility of sources cited. In this case, an online encyclopedia called "Afropedea" is cited. This is not a credible source. In fact the specifc article referenced contains several glaring errors, such as the claim that "Breaking Bad" actor Giancarlo Esposito is an "Afro-Puerto Rican" (he is actually half Italian and half African-American and was born in Denmark).
I also find the articles claim that "Spain's exposure to people of color over the centuries accounted for the positive racial attitudes that prevailed in the New World" to be downright bizarre. They enslaved blacks and Indians for heaven's sake. The Spaniards and Portuguese were the first Europeans to enslave blacks and Indians and were the last to abandon the practice. Around 95% of the blacks brought to the New World as slaves were brought on Spanish and Portuguese ships to toil in Latin-American colonies. In fact the Spanish never voluntarily sbsndoned the slave trade but rather were forced to cease the practice by the British. The suggestion that the Spanish had positive racial attitudes is simply ridiculous.
CannotFindAName (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I like your observation. When this article was originally written, it was without question one of the best. However, throughout the years various users have edit it and the result as you can see is that they've added what may be considered POV or cite unreliable sources. I invite you to make the proper changes and to remove "Afropedea" as a source. Just make sure that you follow Wikipedia policy as to citing reliable verifiable sources when editing.
Slavery has been one of the worst violations of human rights since the beginning of time. We all know how the Egyptians enslaved the Jews and how the Vikings and other conquering tribes in Europe enslaved those whom they conquered. Now, in regard to the blacks, the first Europeans to enslave them were the Greeks and the Romans. Of course the slave trade was not limited to "White" Europeans, in Asia it was quite common. However a lot of people seem to forget that the black slaves who were sold to the slave traders were slaves and or the victims of their tribal chiefs. Plus, in the so-called "New World" slavery already existed among the natives. The Mayas and the Aztecs enslaved and sacrificed those whom they conquered. Even in Puerto Rico, the Caribs enslaved and even ate the Tainos whom at times they fought and beat. Yes, the Spaniards and Portuguese were sinners when it came to the slave trade, but they were not the only bad guys and certainly were not forced by the British to abolish slavery. The British, French and Dutch were just as cruel with their slaves in the Caribbean. While there were abolitionists in the Spanish colonies, who convinced the Spanish Parliament to abolish slavery, the British endorsed and supported the Confederate States of American who fought to retain their slaves. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I really think that the WP:CALC figure needs to be taken out of the infobox unless it's qualified by sources. There's a huge gap in the range of estimates according to various sources, and it's something to be dealt with in the body of the article (preferably a brief statement in the lead) rather than 'guesstimates' being put into the infobox.
If it is deemed that estimates should be in the infobox, I would suggest that they be broken down as 'lowest estimate' and 'highest estimate' (both with sources). Any thoughts from other editors? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Several editors like Asilah1981 and Iryna Harpy have seriously vandilized and whitewashed this page as well as Puerto Rican history. They have deleted several clips of information in an attempt to make Puerto Rico and its history look less black/African.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spreadofknowledge (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Spreadofknowledge!? Would you care to substantiate your accusations with some diffs and clarify where you've come up with this 'whitewashing' theory? ... as well as abstain from such crudity... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It said:

In the following decade, the number of the slave population increased more than tenfold to 258,000, the result mostly of increased importation to meet the demand for labor on sugar plantations.
According to the very same source, the number of slaves in 1834 was 41817, which indeed is an 11% of the total population of 358 836, as the article says.
First, a ten fold increase would not be the stated figure of 258,000, that would be about a seven fold increase. But what the source tells us is, in fact, quite different:

A statistical commission for the island of Puerto Rico was created in 1845. The census taken under its auspices in the following year may be considered reliable. The total figures are:
Whites........................... 216,083
Free colored......................175,791
Slaves............................ 51,265
Total............................ 443,139
So the increase both of slaves and of the total population was about the same, a 25%. So, still the same 11% of slaves.
Even more, we see in the 1858 census a decrease of the number of slaves and an increase of the total population:

Whites................................ 300,430
Free colored.......................... 341,015
Slaves................................ 41,736
Unclassified.......................... 127
Total............................. 583,308
So, a 7,15% of slaves.
Also, I see the table about the Royal Census gives no source and shows an incoherent amount of people in 1847, over a million!
--77.75.179.1 (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)