Talk:Economy of Puerto Rico

message: There needs to be changes for the Import and Export partner changes. Since it hasn't been changed 4 years later, I was wondering if PR has Import/Export partners, such as Germany, France, Switzerland, Belgium, South Korea, Spain or Mexico. JMBZ-12 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Import/Export Partners Changes 

message: Primary sources rather than CIA's World Factbook has become the main source for all indicators. 
Among those sources: 
*International Organizations: 
-World Bank: World Bank Indicators.
-Among others.
*Official (both at federal and state level):
-Government of Puerto Rico.
-Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico.
-Among others. Mrsalcedo (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've updated the Infobox from this article 

message: Better than creating expty sections and tagging them for expansion I feel we should expose the topics in the talk page. Therefore, I'm clearing up the article and numerating areas for improvement here.
*History
**Pre-colonialism
**Spanish rule
*Finances
**Public debt
**Government budget balance
*Economic history of Puerto Rico
—Joelito (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with removing the sections and the cleanup templates since that's exactly what they are for and it's common practice on Wikipedia to do so. Remember that per WP:IMPERFECT, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. It is better to create the structure of the article and tag it with templates than to post it on a talk page that is rarely seen by readers. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating empty sections just makes the article ugly. In my opinion putting tags everywhere does not make the article better nor does it motivate people to work on it. Rather it just shuns people away from the article. Addressing your comment on structure readers want to read and there's nothing to read in am empty section. Content creators, those for whom the structure would be useful, read talk pages. Joelito (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not agree with your opinion but per WP:JUSTDROPIT I won't continue this argument as I don't consider this an urgent matter nor one that needs to be discussed in depth. I won't be reverting your edits either per WP:ONLYREVERT. I'm WP:LETITGO. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Areas needing expansion 

message: how does a decrease in new farmers will have  on the island when they import 85% of what they consume? It doesn't seem that a decrease in the farmers that produce a mere 15% of what is consumed will have "significant" effects on the island. Could you please expand this? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decrease in new farmers 

message: There are several references to Forbes contributors. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says these are not reliable sources and should not be used.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbes contributors vs Forbes editorial staff sources 

message: The picture is of San Juan, Manila as can clearly be seen from the caption referencing Quezon City. It should be of some aspect of Puerto Rico, I'd think. 128.164.134.121 (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Photo 

message: I do not believe this phrase makes sense. 216.8.143.101 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is a word and it seems to be used correctly in the paragraph.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a word. But "its suzerainty to the United States" suggest that the suzerainty belongs to Puerto Rico, not the US. 216.8.143.101 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ...changed to "relationship with". Thank you.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "suzerainty to" 

message: Why is this section's neutrality being disputed? Jarble (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jarble: Pretty much every paragraph includes extensive editorializing, verging on WP:SYNTH.  The opening supposes a unified "political class", without citing any literature to suggest that this is an appropriate framework within which to analyze PR's political dynamics.  And there is no clear picture presented, just a list of situations in which Puerto Rico does (or is implied to do) poorly (Is Puerto Rico trying to compete in those industries?  Should it?).  When I read the section, the author's subtext seems to me as "If I governed Puerto Rico, here's how I'd do it; and those politicians are just too lazy to do it too," which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.  Hope this helps, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute