Talk:Puerto Rico/Archive 2

message: I added to the Puerto Rico page, and my contribution was that of Puerto Ricans in the United States.  I thought it was significant to the entry considering the large influx of Puerto Ricans living in the United States, but more specifically East Harlem, New York.  This is a part of my University research that deals with the history of the Americas.  I hope this remains a vital piece of this entry, and if there are any suggestions considering the content, or way it is written please feel free to let me know or edit.  Thank you all. --Domenic.Demasi 13:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Ricans in the United States 

message: The Geography section states:
"...Puerto Rico enjoys an average temperature of 82.4 °F (28 °C) throughout the year."
However, the following section - Geology - states:
"Puerto Rico enjoys year round summer temperatures, an average annual temperature of 80ºF (26ºC)."
I do not know which one is correct, but the inconsistency is confusing at best.
phrawzty 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. A reference is needed to settle this. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this very complete table here , now how do we write the line? -凶 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Temperatures vary by location. No point in listing all locations or getting an island-wide average. The best option is to give an island-wide average range. Joelito (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually 75-90ºF in San Juan during the summer, but it feels like 120 :-) --Boricuaeddie hábleme 15:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, you're right. I went there once to participate in a Math competition at the RUM, and I almost died from the heat :-) --Boricuaeddie hábleme 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the humidity. Its killer. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 03:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annual Temperature 

message: I think this section is misleading and confusing to someone who is not familiar with the puerto rican history and sociology (someone can think that these are minority groups living in puerto rico or that puerto ricans are a 'bunch of people' which is false). First, it classifies Tainos with the Puerto Rican flag which is incorrect Also gives too much emphasis on minor inmigrants, who are not even a minority group (like the japanese in Peru, chinese in Brazil or Cuba [there is a chinatown in La Habana] or germans in Chile) that did not represent a significant role in Puerto Rico's past or present history/sociology. No other country in Latin America has a section like this one (with flags) while we all know that Latin American populaton is a blend of races, that formed with the passing of time a nationality in each country. In Puerto Rico the 3 major races are the Spanish, the Caribbean Natives (Taino tribe) and then the african slaves who came from eastern africa. (These blend formed the Puerto Rican nationality, a hstoric process that lasted more than 400 years in the making). I think that this section needs to be deleated.--Royptorico 00:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment, please don't delete the statements in the box without any prior discussion, some of these matters might be somewhat controversial. -凶 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have deleted the whole section. Puerto Rican heritage is just a combination of demographics and culture both of which already have sections. If there is relevant information regarding this it can be added to any of those sections. Furthermore, the section was just a list with unreferenced numbers. Joelito (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed deletion of PR heritage section 

message: Can somebody explain this "The large majority of residents living in metropolitan areas are bilingual[citation needed]." If no one can come up with a citation for this I believe it should be eliminated. I live and work in the Metro Area, and most of my colleagues, neighbors, and well, most of the people I've meet and known throughout the years, are not bilingual. One thing I have notice, the upper the social class (not necessarily the education) the more prone to be bilingual.Solcita 19:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Solcita's statement, I had the luck that growing up my father had good wealth and I learned English at a young age before moving to the U.S. I can recall being one of the few students to know the language when I studied in the island. -凶 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! That's not true. I study in a private school and I am most certainly bilingual. --Boricuaeddie 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a big diference between being bilingual and comprehending English, being bilingual is being able to both speak and write in English and Spanish, not being able to speak perfect Spanish and being able to write in both but speak a Ingles patea'o. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bilinguals 

message: Under the section  Government of Puerto Rico:
:Puerto Rico has limited representation in the U.S. Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a nonvoting delegate, and the current Congress had returned the Commissioner's power to vote in the Committee of the Whole, but not on matters where the vote would represent a decisive participation.[24]
The reference is to:
:Rules of the House of Representatives
In this substantial document I was unable to find this allowance to vote (to make law, not in committee).  The closest seems to be Rule III, Section 3(a), "In a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, each Delegate and the Resident Commissioner shall possess the same powers and privileges as Members of the House."  If this means they can vote, it would seem there's no restriction.  But the preceding section on voting mentions only Members.
So can the Resident Commissioner ever vote?  Can someone point to the rule and section number?  The Wikipedia article on the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico says he or she can't.  --Wfaxon 05:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resident Commissioner can sometimes vote? 

message: I found photo space that includes a photo that no longer exist. An administrator can take this down, but I enjoy having more spread around on the edits no matter how big, or in this case small the edit may be. Thank You.  --Apologies2all  18:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: The article refers to Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport as "serving the Virgin Islands".  I don't think that is strictly true with respect to either the British Virgin Islands or the United States Virgin Islands, as each has several airports of their own.  Although most do connect via PR to long haul flights, St. Thomas has direct flights to the U.S. and most airports in the BVI and USVI also connect down-island.  I am not sure that the comment is even strictly true for the Spanish Virgin Islands as both Culebra and Vieques have their own airports, and Culebra even has its own airline. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Serving" in airport terms usually means the main final destination of the passengers who use it. This is to differentiate from locality. For example, the Newark International Airport is located in Newark, New Jersey, but also serves the Greater New York City area, in spite of New York City itself having two other international airports.  Primary sources clearly state LMM "serves" the VIs along with a chunk of the Caribbean (the airlines' route maps etc).  Thanks! --Cerejota 06:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transportation 

message: Image:Bandera de Lares.JPG should be replaced by  as per deletion log.
Thanks!--Cerejota 13:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 14:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Image:Bandera de Lares.JPG]] 

message: According to this, the page is fully protected, not semi-protected. Could someone replace the semi-protection template with the fully-protected template? It's really misleading. --Boricuaeddie 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now it's not protected at all; the protection expired. I've removed the protection tag; if problems (vandalism, etc.) persist, you can contact me or put up a request at WP:RFPP. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, anyway. --Boricuaeddie 03:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Template 

message: Territories of the United States has a rather interesting formulation:
Unincorporated organized territories (commonwealth)
To refer to Puerto Rico. Thoughts?
Thanks!--Cerejota 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV relationship with USA 

message: There is reasearch on this around and some people think that Puerto Rico was never autonomous......it seems to have had been able to self-rule itself for only afew months from november 1897-april 1898 the same as an 'overseas province' of Spain, until the US declaried war.....even though the USA warned Spain not to loose its last colonies...as it new they (cuba and PR) were very important strategic places....
I think there should be alittle section added on to the Spanish coloy section about this...as someome deleted this...this is Very similar to the present autonomous Canary Islands.
When PR was still a spanish colony ....some were in favor for the more political freedom and some were not happy..and some were happy just the way they were....Just as the people are in the present-day U.S control situation..some still dont want independence and prefer it to become a state...even though it would be a large threat to thier language status and cultural status...and some beleive independance is the best way forward and others like to stay the same...that seems to be part of being a territory.
The Problem about Puerto Rico having its offical name change to Porto Rico till 1932...this is not a POV..this is written in many official Puerto Rico websites...all over the web.....what people think??
Spain21 29 September 2007 (UTC)
:I will budge on this one and admit that I made a mistake. PR did have a short-lived autonomy since Nov. 25, 1897 until the onset of the Spanish-American War. The autonomous government was established on Feb. 12, 1898. However I believe that this should have a brief mention on the article. I do not believe it merits a new section when at most it will be two sentences long. Furthermore, I wish that politics would not get merged into this addition. Just stick to the facts (which I presented above). Joelito (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico's Autonomous Self Rule 

message: The town of Coamo's date of incorporation was 1579, not 1570, making it the third oldest town in PR, right after San Germán. I just made the correction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.9.153.122 (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Municipalities/Towns 

message: I have reinserted, sourced and improved deleted text regarding this subject.  The assertions in this section are almost entirely settled historical facts.  The concerns regarding the island becoming a "piggy bank" for the Cheneys and the Obamas that fly in to collect donations and fly out without any real contact with PR was a matter of public comment as recently as in today's newspapers, as noted in the footnotes.  Rather than strike out the entire section, I would invite other contributors to improve this section and delete only those phrases and sentences they may believe do not adhere to Wiki policies.Pr4ever 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-deleted these section because:
#The Puerto Rico article is a summary article (see WP:SS) and the section provides detailed information.
#The section belongs to the Politics of Puerto Rico article.
#The politics section in this article is already too long and controversial to add further controversial or POV statements. Joelito (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential politics in Puerto Rico 

message: In order to distinguish PR from fully self-governing jurisdictions, I added the word "partial".  Residents do not participate in the selection of their head of state, their national legislative branch or the selection of district, appeal or Supreme Court judges whose determinations are applicable to residents.  A recent OAS report documented than non-totally self-governing nature of PR's current relationship within the United States constitutional framework.Pr4ever (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your POV.  The Head of State is the President and he is not elected by voters in PR.  Virtually every official US Govt. declaration makers it clear PR is an organized unincorporated territory of the US.  As such, while PR has a greater degree of self-govt. than, say, Guam, it is not fully self-governing.  Thus, the use of the word "partial" is factual and correct, to distinguish PR from fully self-governing jurisdictions.Pr4ever (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You wrote: "Under International law there is no "partial" self governing, "partial self governing" is the same as non - self governing." You see, if you have reliable sources that express that, put it in the article. You don't need permission to do that. If Pr4ever has sources that say the opposite, he can do the same. It's simple. You guys don't reall have to agree on every issue. Each can separately present his POV, so long as it's backed up by good sources, and it should not be removed. If the sources prove to be wrong, or miscited, then that's a different thing. SamEV (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Partial" self government 

message: After carefully analyzing the progression and development of Puerto Rico Wiki Page, WE have concluded that it has been a FLAGRANT project to UNDERMINE the EXPLOITATION of POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY by:
*User:Pr4ever
*User:Joelr31
with, but not limited to:
*A False Portrayal and Impression of Puerto Rico
*Distorted and Garbled Language Styles
*No Insight about the Real Culture and Social Situation of Puerto Rico
*No Enlightenment about the Education Status of Puerto Rico
*Article Format Incertitude: Jumbled Structure and Disordered Composition
*Unacceptable, Impetuous, Amateurish and Atrocious Article Hierarchy
*Poor Copy Writing
*Reversed Political Propaganda represented with the point of view of several individuals writing this article to vindicate and exonerate the point of views of other Wikipedians.
The purpose of Wikepedia is to EDUCATE every GENERATION with FREE THOUGHT, KNOWLEDGE and INTELLIGENCE, not SPECULATION or POINT OF VIEWS COMING FROM SEVERAL POLITICAL PARTY FANATICS.
The Past Version was Confusing, Polarizing, Partisan and full of Bafflement. This article should not be reverted as it is now being examined by other administrators.
::I agree, i didnt see any change in the content of the article as well (new and old version). Only a minor fix. Also, both users have been manipulating the process of building the article and eradicating the entrance of other wiki writers. (Whitepowderkark (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked account. You were warned. Joelito (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOVEMBER 18, 2007 

message: Pr4ever is adding some large amounts of unnecessary information as well as some POVs. Both Joel and I have reverted these edits per WP:SS, and do not plan on letting this additions stay until consensus is reached that they are needed, which currently does not exist. --Agüeybaná (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: Wikipedians:
Wake up folks. "Geography good article"? While arguing in detail a big raft of points, you're all apparently missing a drastic error/contradiction on PR's area.
The top sidebar gives an accurate figure comporting with competent sources -- ca. 3,515 sq. mi. (which BTW is a bit larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined). Yet the text gives a much higher figure of more than 5,300 sq. mi. It even compounds the error by saying that this (wrong) figure represents area smaller than Conn. (Actually, a bit bigger.) But the figure is way wrong in the first place. This is not even a case where complex geography and/or enclosed or bounded water areas can confuse such figures -- the text is simply wrong.
I often read Wiki and highly value it, but constantly see serious errors of all types, that help keep Wiki from becoming a regularly credible source. Errors obvious to even ignorant readers -- simply by naked contradiction, such as this one -- are particulary lamentable. I'd spend more time correcting/editing Wiki were I not invested in building my already book-length files of similar errors in the supposedly world-class Washington Post. But given the good value I get from Wiki generally, I think I'll learn the basics of editing and pitch in, throw some food with the whine. Meantime I'd like to see an active member, or whatever you call yourselves, respond by correcting this text.
I write this in the open. Mark Powell  mwpsky@yahoo.com 69.140.0.44 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just edited the figures in the geography section, per the CIA Factbook. The figures in the infobox seem to refer only to the land area and the inland waters, so a small discrepancy still exists. SamEV (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography-Area 

message: Why is the size of Puerto Rico compared to US states such as Connecticut? Wouldn't a comparison to nearby islands make more sense? There is no reason to assume that every reader of the English articles of Wikipedia knows the general size of US states; indeed, it changes the perspective of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.154.29 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think it would make more sense to compare the main island with Hispaniola and Jamaica seeing that they are a lot more easier to compare in a geographical map, but when Joel removed it under that argument it was quickly restored back, unfortunatelly as is the case with many other issues in this page most edits are politically based. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As HQ said above I believe that a geographical comparison with the Greater Antilles is more appropiate than with a US state. However, some people believe otherwise. A quick look in any book will reveal comparisons with the Greater Antilles. Joelito (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A comparison with Connecticut would be appropriate if this was a text aimed solely for people from the US. Although I'm sure that the majority of the people who read this could be from the US, I don't think that's the aim or purpose of this article. --Madgirl 15 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: In an article for Primera Hora, Jesús Omar Rivera indicates that the island was named Puerto Rico by Juan Ponce de León after finding gold in the bay of San Juan. Should I wrestle that into the article's history section? ~RayLast «Talk!» 17:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should go for it. I wanted to find another source to back this up and did. See: http://fcit.usf.edu/Florida/lessons/de_leon/de_leon1.htm It's probably aimed at younger students but it's from a resource provided by a University so I think it's valid. --Madgirl 15 (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Boriken is indeed a Taíno name, I'm not exactly sure why you say that it "sounds" simmilar but at least in Spanish this name is more commonly written and pronounced as "Borinquen". The use of the term is widespread and its precolumbian origin is known by most people, its popularity can be evidenced by its use in both the name and lyrics of Puerto Rico's national anthem, La Borinqueña and the common alternative for "Puerto Rican", boricua. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you pronounce Puerto Rico in a Spanish accent and elide the 'to' syllable, it becomes "Porico", which sounds more or less the same as "Boriken" especially if you destress the last syllable.  I'm just saying it seems plausible to me that "Boriken" and related words are words imported from Spanish into Taino.  Similar to how the English name for "Japan" derives from the Japanese word "Nippon".  I think there should be a more authoritative reference to clear this up for non-experts such as myself.  Maybe a quote from that book would clarify everything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPMonday (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico - Name 

message: There's a cool fact about Puerto Rico that might be possible to place somewhere in the Geography section. Puerto Rico has one of the most ideal locations for a method for generating electricity/renewable energy called Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) located at less than 2 miles from the shore of Punta Tuna in Maunabo. See Renewable Energy from the Deep Ocean. ~RayLast «Talk!» 00:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, a single plant can produce 800 million KW in electric output, it should be mentioned in geography, we already mention the trench but there isn't much oceanic information outside of that. I remember hearing that Puerto Rico is the only place in the world where fluorescent water can be observed throughout  the year but I have no idea where to find a reliable source for that. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "fluorescent" water you mean bioluminescent water, it can be seen on moonless nights at Mosquito Bay in Vieques, the Punta Las Cabezas Lagoon in Fajardo and the Phosphorescent Bay in the La Parguera area of Lajas, the latter being the most polluted and less luminiescent of the three.Pr4ever (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fluorecent, bioluminicent, radioactive... they all glow, the only difference is that "bioluminicent" has a "biological" factor behind it, anyway I was thinking about "Flourecent bay" which is a term that I have heard in the past. However, the relevant aspect is that Puerto Rico may be the only place in the world where this can be observed the entire year. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTEC near Punta Tuna 

message: How far are we from having an FA quality for this one? ~RayLast «Talk!» 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Far. Without a true culture section this will never have a chance at FAC. Also some sections need copyediting and better sources (preferably from books) are required. Joelito (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any example of an article from some country or territory that has been featured that we can use to beef this thing up once and for all? ~RayLast «Talk!» 01:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Turkey, among others. Joelito (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Joel, we need to create a culture section. As far as references go I added a few to "Geography" last week which was a section tagged with  templates, the sports section needs some as well. Now the main problem will be keeping the article free of PNP/PIP/PPD pov, when this article is unprotected those appear on a daily basis, a "stable" version must be constructed and restored when this happens. Now, at this moment my focus is on Puerto Rican Amazon, but if all of us are available to heavily edit the article in summer perhaps we can start a FA push in July and try to have it on the main page by November 19, I have faith that if we all cooperate this can be done as was the case with Ramón Emeterio Betances last year. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I've been pretty much out of Wikipedia these past couple of months, focusing more on the gigantic work needed in Wikisource. But if we're going for an FA drive for this article, count me in. Definitely. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I like this idea to chop it up.  It also makes the whole process less stressful.  Just assign me an area and I'll bring the broom!  Qb | your 2 cents 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the Culture section problem, what do you suggest? should we first create a good Culture of Puerto Rico article and then include an extract in the main Puerto Rico article or should we build on the Puerto Rico article and then drain into the specific Culture article? I have included the sections I believe should be found in a "Culture" article in Talk:Culture of Puerto Rico. With the help of the "Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña" we should be able to get somwhere. ~RayLast «Talk!» 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think thats a great idea to start there.  We can't very well have a "For more information see X" link without having what it links to be up to par with at least GA status.  That would ease up our burden of creating something for a culture section.  Qb | your 2 cents 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the idea of divinding work, that would speed up the process since every user would be focusing on their part. Ramón Emeterio Betances was done in steps, Demf did a lot of research and wrote a very solid structure, but for some reason people kept failing the article for some rather minor issues, Demf stopped working on the article for some time and was notably frustrated (who wouldn't be?). I nominated the article to WP:GAC a few months later and Eddie joined, the article passed following this collaboration and was taken to WP:PR, but that was pointless so we took it to WP:FA and attended the matters there. Raising an article to featured status its about having neutral parties reviewing it, those ussually find issues that to the user working on the article might not be troubling. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA 

message: I question the academic validity of some of the sources utilized for this section. Further, it seems like some generalizations are made that are taking things a step too far...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.34.175 (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then be bold and fix them... or at the very least provide examples of the dubious sources and where these generalizations occur.  This article will not, and I think I can write ever, be migrated to a footnote within the US main article.  Qb | your 2 cents 11:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: edit:  ha!  I read that wrong... I read the header as that this whole article should be migrated to the US article.  My bad.  Qb | your 2 cents 11:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration to the United States section 

message: Being the English language version of Wikipedia, it's normal to have the standard English pronunciation of a subject indicated, as well as a relevant foreign-language pronunciation.
The article currently only has a Spanish language pronunciation indicated.
As the article is locked, I am submitting this to the Wikipedia Lock Demigods for implementation:
(in U.S. English, IPA: [ˈpɔɹdʌ ˌɹikoʊ ] or [ˈpweɹtoʊ ˌɹikoʊ], in Spanish [ˌpwertoˈriko])  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.153.101 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA Pronunciations -- English vs. Spanish 

message: Well people summer is here and we should take advantage of the ammount of free time that some of us will have. The first logic step is to assign sections to each user so we can individually improve each one, that should make the work easier since it will be parallel. Personally I prefer the "Geography" section, I have sourced and worked with this one before and would like to avoid politics as much as possible. Anyone else interested in working with a particular section? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: History for me. Joelito (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to work on looking for references. --Agüeybaná 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit caught up on Wikisource, but I'll take transportation and maybe, ugh, politics. I cleared that section up months ago, without major controversy. Hopefully, I can do it this time with more references. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, our target date should be July 15, leaving us with at least half of July to work with it. I will try e-mailing Marcos and some of the inactive users on that date, unless they confirm here before. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have contacted the users that are currently working as admins in sister project's, Marcos says that he is 'half-in', his participation is probably one of the most important along Joel's. I will begin my work as part of the push tommorow, the exact same day that Puerto Ricans in World War II will be featured on the main page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA push, step 1 - dividing the work 

message: On June 9th 2008 the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization adopts text calling on United States to expedite self-determination process for Puerto Rico, it also called upon a process that would allow Puerto Ricans to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence.
UN official website link:  .--vertical (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may merit one sentence, or part of one in the Politics section. But definitely not in the intro. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Nations decolonization committee resolution (2008) on Puerto Rico 

message: According to the current IPA symbols used for the Spanish language is typed, . Notice the vowels "e" and "o" are mid-vowels  and . The spanish "t" is dental plosive , not alveolar plosive  as it indicates without the additional mark.
The official Spanish name, Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, would be in IPA transcription: 
84.120.160.88 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone correct the pronunciation of ''Puerto Rico''? 

message: I started but suspended a WP:GAR at the request of User:Caribbean H.Q. and WP:PUR. However, I did start to make some comments which I have posted below:
*There are still  tags that have not been addressed.
*Some references provided are inadequate as they only provide the URL and/or title of a work.
*The articles does not meet WP:MOS standards in the following ways:
**Foreign words are not italicized
**Article needs to be sufficiently wikified, complete dates are not wikilinked nor are key terms and phrases.
*Information is imprecise and does not meet Wikipedia's best work standards, for example:
**"Later the island took the name of Puerto Rico while the capital was named San Juan." What does later mean? When the island received its name is a rather important piece of information.
**Chronology issues: One line says that a Spanish governor took control of the island and the next it says "The Spanish soon colonized the island." 1. Surely the Spanish had already colonized the island by the time a governor was installed and 2. Relevant dates are still left out.
**"During the late 17th and early 18th centuries colonial emphasis was on the more prosperous mainland territories, leaving the island impoverished of settlers." The island had few settlers or the settlers themselves were impoverished?
Hopefully I'll get around to making additional comments on the rest of the article. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment thoughts 

message: Baseball is no longer the most popular sport in Puerto Rico. Since the recession in the local baseball league, basketball, volleyball, boxing and (recently) football/soccer are more popular now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.221.201 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable source should be found either way. Kman543210 (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports 

message: Clarification needed- POLITICAL STATUS:
It is important to clarify to those not accostumed the thick, almost impenetrable language regardidng the political status of Puerto Rico.  Those not from Puerto Rico simply can't understand Puerto Rico's Status, and stating that it is under the plenary power of the Congress of the US, but with some local powers, etc, does not help.  The goal here is not to be legally perfect, we should leave that task to lawyers.  We need terms that most people of the whole world could relate to.  I propose that we should add clarification to state that:
1.  Puerto Rico's political status is unique in the world.
2.  Much controversy as to its actual meaning exist.
2.  Being under plenary powers of the US Congress, specially because there is some local (insular) power, accounts to the following:  US Congress has delegated some powers to local authorities/agencies it allows to exist.  Because none of these powers are constitutionally protected (as are those of a State of the Union) Puerto Rico's powers may be revoked by the US Congress.--Alegrejibarito (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem, please read this, as with any "commonwealth" the archipelago's government has autonomy over internal affairs, hence the "unincorporated" part. Before continuing the crusade, note that there is a reason why three different users have reverted you and it doesn't have anything to do with promoting an idelogy. As a sidenote, SineBot is a bot, he doesn't comment, but the user that edited under an IP address has a point. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, by asuming we are asuming something is why you keep getting reverted, we have resisted numerous political edit wars, the "unincorporated" part was ultimately taken from the CIA Factbook, no Puerto Rican source. I just noticed by clicking your sig that you seem to be adding politics in non-polital articles (particulary Cuisine of Puerto Rico) please don't go into political details in such articles, we want to avoid edit wars, we try to keep poltics out of culture, sports and arts. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: If you know they are "in constant threat" why do you add them? Try something neutral, "In New York" (reffering to cities is particulary effective to kill this issue), "In the United States", avoid words that bring trouble, avoid "mainland" or "other parts of the US" those are baits for opposing POVs. You must avoid conflicts, if politics in Puerto Rico were that simple we wouldn't have three parties in constant war and we wouldn't have political analists with different poits of views. By doing otherwise you are doing exactly the same that they are doing. Now, there articles that must attend politics, but cuisine, sports, music, etc. must never do so. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The "unincorporated" part clearly came form the CIA Factbook, did you read the link? The source is used in countless countless articles. I have no idea what you guys are doing in Cuisine of Puerto Rico, I only saw this, which is just going to bring trouble. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinfomation 

message: a country does not have to be sovereign. i saw it somewhere about puerto rico "this COUNTRY is a colony of the united states" it is a country just not an independent one. it could be if it wanted. they get referendums.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.37.212.124 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country 

message: Puerto Rico was ranked in the 41st place (out of 134 countries) in the WEF Global Competitiveness report 2008- 2009. In Latin America, Puerto Rico (41) is in second place below Chile (28). Puerto Rico slipped 5 places compared to the previous global report. Reference: WEF official website: WEF 2008-2009 Global report--vertical (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico takes 41st spot in '''WEF''' Global Competitiveness report 

message: Please, remove all wrong or inaccurate information from the article. Especially the "unincorporated territory" thing, the "statutory citizenship" myth, and others alike. Neither they have fundamental principles on US Constitution nor on official Congress documentation. It looks more like political propaganda. When reading the article the first time, I had to double check the URL address to make sure I wasn't reading a PPD brochure, praising ELA colonial status quo, or a PNP or PIP essay talking about "unincoporated territories", and "statutory citizenships".
--Portorricensis (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mind keeping the argument in only one place? This is the third identical thread, with the same argument and even the same lead. I am the one that archives this talk page and these only provide redundant bytes to the archives, which are large enough as it is. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text: While the statutory citizenship is a descriptive term, it applies and is merely a reflection of reality.  Congress has the power to revoke the Jones Law, and take citizenship away, theoretically.  That they would do so is another issue not relevant.  With regards to whether Puerto Rico is a territory, here are links from CONGRESS where Puerto Rico is classified as a territory:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:9:./temp/~c1109v7LIn::
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:21:./temp/~c1109v7LIn::
Based on the US Constitution text: "The Congress shall have Powers to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"
Following the 1898 war, Puerto Rico was ceded as a territory, and the only incorporated territories are the states and D.C., hence it is obvious that Puerto Rico IS an unincorporated territory and your claims are based on your political point of view.131.94.223.194 (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove misinformation from the article!!! 

message: This political party has been created to bring a change to Puerto Rico. Its plan of action revolves around making Puerto Rico independent from other countries and connecting every major metropolis in the island. Its current party leader is Rogelio Figueroa. It has no current status affiliation which makes it able to adopt any status depending on how the economy is going.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafar2011 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partido por Puerto Rico/ PPR 

message: Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (), Alaska (), Hawaii (), the U.S. Virgin Islands (), and Guam (). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President Harry S. Truman (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
U.S. Constitution Online
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In , the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
U.S. Nationals
A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.
Becoming a citizen
A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization, generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good moral character.  (Seablade (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional Topic: Citizenship 

message: Design of Puerto Rico quarter at issue - Numismatic News
Sep 15
With a choice of two designs, there is an attempt in Puerto Rico to make a third choice for its territorial quarter.
With literally days to go before its 2009 territorial quarter design has to be finalized to go before the Commission of Fine Arts and the Citizens Coin Advisory Committee, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is making a bold move to have the famous Arecibo Observatory as the distinguishing feature on the coin’s design.
http://www.coincollectingnews.org/design-of-puerto-rico-quarter-at-issue-numismatic-news/10698
Design of Puerto Rico at issue
September 15, 2008
by  By David L. Ganz
With a choice of two designs, there is an attempt in Puerto Rico to make a third choice for its territorial quarter.
With literally days to go before its 2009 territorial quarter design has to be finalized to go before the Commission of Fine Arts and the Citizens Coin Advisory Committee, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is making a bold move to have the famous Arecibo Observatory as the distinguishing feature on the coin’s design.
It was not originally an option.
About 200 days from now, the new Puerto Rican coin of whatever design will go into production, and then into circulation following the Hawaii state quarter that concludes the 50-state series, which has been in continuous production since 1999. Designs on the quarter’s reverse have changed every 10 weeks for 10 years.
In 2007, Congress altered the formula and made good a promise to add the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and four other insular territories: Guam, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Puerto Rico conducted a concept selection process that provided two different concepts. The U.S. Mint produced two original candidate designs for each concept, focusing on aesthetic beauty, historical accuracy, appropriateness and coinability.
The quarter from Puerto Rico has two designs, each of which uses a Spanish phrase. For the first, “Palacio de Santa Catalina,” the fortress that serves as the governor’s residence, is depicted. It is Puerto Rico’s  most important as the oldest government building in continuous use in the Americas, dating to 1533.
The second design bears the phrase “Isla del Encanto” (the enchanted island), and shows a fortress parapet and Puerto Rico’s national flower, the flor de maga. The maga is closely related to hibiscus but unlike the common hibiscus, the maga is a tree.
The commission recommended alternative No. 2, commenting that “the sentry box from the fortifications of old San Juan provides the more simple and legible composition for a coin design and as a representation of the island’s history.”
With the two competing visions, the government of the island took matters into its own hands. The Senate of Puerto Rico approved a resolution on June 30 urging the U.S. Mint to select an image of the Arecibo Observatory for Puerto Rico’s commemorative quarter.
Support was widespread. The final design, whatever it is, should be public shortly.
http://dev.numismaticnews.net/article/Design_of_Puerto_Rico_at_issue/
--Seablade (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative 3, the Arecibo Observatory, which has widespread support in Puerto Rico.  Puerto Rico did NOT develop a "concept selection process".  The first two designs came out of the blue with no prior public reach-out in Puerto Rico.  The third alternative was unanimously supported by the Senate of Puerto Rico (and its rare that its members ever agree on anything!).  But at this late stage of the game, I guess that, literally, the die is cast. Pr4ever (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico Quarter 2009 

message: Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917.  Currently Puerto Rico is an “unincorporated territory” of the United States which according to the U.S. Supreme Court's Insular Cases is “a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States.”Downes v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 244, 287 (1901); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922). Puerto Rico is subject to the Congress’ plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution.U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States...”). US federal law applies to Puerto Rico, even though Puerto Rico is not a state of the American Union and has no voting representative in the U.S. Congress. Due to the establishment of the Federal Relations Act of 1950, all federal laws that are “not locally inapplicable” are automatically the law of the land in Puerto Rico.39 Stat. 954, 48 USCA 734 “The statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable, except as hereinbefore or hereinafter otherwise provided, shall have the same force and effect in Porto Rico as in the United Status…".  In general terms, Puerto Rico's current political/legal status derives from an express delegation of US Congress powers to a local (internal) government.  Because these powers are not protected by the US constitution (as are those of the admitted States of the Union), they may be revoked.--Alegrejibarito (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a problem with the sourcing, which is all from primary sources that provide no third-party narrative or analysis, in addition to no verifiability. While this is borderline WP:SYNTH, I am willing to overlook the objections if it becomes consensus. The issues is when our FA status gets revised, are we able to survive with primary sourcing? Or if it proves a controversial interpretation/synthesis? I worry... but great effort! Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately for us, this article is still a GA. And a shaky one at that, mostly due to all the kinds of stuff that find the way in when no one is watching and stay there for months, like they say, Cuando el gato no está, los ratones hacen fiesta. The first role call to push this to FA failed, I know that Marcos is busy, but outside of that I have no idea why everyone besides Joel apparently lost interest out of a sudden. I would love to see another effort, but don't think that sending confirmation e-mails will be my job this time. As sad as it seems, we might have a better chance calling people specialized in country articles instead of hoping that all the boricua users will assemble to do it. Though I don't blame them, every Puerto Rican user surely knows how annoying keeping the political POV out of here during the process will be. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Status  -[ proposing a change to clarify; check last two sentences) 

message: Please, remove all wrong or inaccurate information from the article. Especially the "unincorporated territory" thing, the "statutory citizenship" myth, and others alike. Neither they have fundamental principles on US Constitution nor on official Congress documentation. It looks more like political propaganda. When reading the article the first time, I had to double check the URL address to make sure I wasn't reading a PPD brochure, praising ELA colonial status quo, or a PNP or PIP essay talking about "unincoporated territories", and "statutory citizenships".
--Portorricensis (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, remove misinformation and propaganda! 

message: Why is it that there are over 4 sentences covering Jews in Puerto Rico when they make up less than 1% of the population?
--67.80.174.252 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the word marano does not come from the Hebrew word for conversion. It comes from one of the Spanish words for pig. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text: DrFrantz, please provide citations to support your fantastic claim that almost half of Puerto Ricans ("over 40%" as you call it) "are descendants of...Jews".  This is quite interesting and if proven true, we should waste no time letting everyone know about this, don't you think? Mercy11 (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews/Hebreos/Sefardies 

message: Just a heads-up that according to Checklinks, this article references several URLs that are dead or have connection issues. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I think the following statement should be removed (or relocated) since it is about an ecclesiastical leader when the section is about government and politics: "The Holy See has designated the Papal Nuncio in the Dominican Republic as the ecclesiastical liaison to the Roman Catholic Church in Puerto Rico." --Eustress (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Holy See is "recognized by other subjects of international law as a sovereign entity" and "maintains diplomatic relations with states and participates in international organizations." --J.Mundo (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion in ''Government and politics'' 

message: English influence on the spanish language. It's said in the article that spanish has its own idiosincrasy in Puerto Rico.  But this is more a subjetive point of view, english is influencing almost every language in the globe, spanish is taking many english words not only in Puerto Rico, the work 'parking' is not only used in the island but also in Spain substituting "estacionamiento', in fact the spanish in Puerto Rico is very close to the spanish in Spain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.5.92.211 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  language 

message: Should we say "Puerto Rico is an internally self-governing territory of the United States...."?
Prietodog (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be factually correct. Pr4ever (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: It is debatable whether politically Puerto Rico is a nation, and it is certainly not fully-self governing.  The United States and a majority of Puerto Ricans do not necessarily accept the contents of several resolutions by a committee of the UN (not even a Security Council, much less a General Assembly resolution), including the 2008 one. Pr4ever (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: nationhood is a sociological term (people who share common customs, origins, history, and language and live in a defined territory occupied by such a group of people), not a political one (a country can be a nation without being politically independent, when it becomes independent then it is called ,in political science, a Nation-State. Jamaica was not independent until 1962 but nobody questions that it was not a nation (people who share common customs, origins, history, and language and live in a defined territory occupied by such a group of people) before it's independence, it simply was a Non-Sovereign Nation much like Ireland, India and a great number of countries that were under a colonial regime. Today, Puerto Rico belongs to the group of Non-Sovereign Nations, a group that has become smaller since the 1950's. This is more evident in the sports world, since Puerto Rico has it's own national team  .  --66.50.154.158 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico's degree of self-government 

message: Democratic Party 2000 Platform
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but the island’s ultimate status still has not been determined and its 3.9 million residents still do not have voting representation in their national government. These disenfranchised citizens – who have contributed greatly to our country in war and peace – are entitled to the permanent and fully democratic status of their choice. Democrats will continue to work in the White House and Congress to clarify the options and enable them to chose and to obtain such a status from among all realistic options.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seablade (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the viewpoint of those who favor Puerto Rico to become a US-state (ignore the establishment of the Estado Libre Asociado in 1952 and Puerto Rican nationality). Those who do not favor Puerto Rico to be a US-state (those who favor the current association or the independence option) do not see the US as their national government, see the US as a partner in an association, an association that began in 1952 with the creation of the Estado Libre Asociado (Associated Free State). Those favoring the current status do not favor a colonial or territorial status as an option, this was clearly established with former Governor's Acevedo Vila historic speech at the United Nations.  . --72.50.121.43 (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic Party 2000 Platform 

message: The UN Decolonization committee approved a resolution on Puerto Rico (June 15th 2009). The resolution approves text calling on US to expedite self determination process for Puerto Rico, process that would allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. UN official document: 
--vertical (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added that info to the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Nations resolution on Puerto Rico 

message: I change some images, helps links more articles. For example I think that Rafael Cordero is more representative than rice and beans in the culture section. Of course, the magic of Wiki is that you can revert me, but maybe we can talk about it first. thanks, --J.Mundo (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: While many Puerto Ricans generally believe that Puerto Rico has a distinct national identity, many Puerto Ricans, including those belonging to the ruling majority party, including four of the past 7 governors, don't. This issue has been the subject of multiple public debates in Puerto Rico that continue today.  The "unequivocal national identity" phrase appearing in the introduction is a quote properly sourced from a UN Committee report.  The Special Committee's report is not endorsed by the United States government, just like an official recent US District Court opinion concluding that Puerto Rico is an "incorporated" territory (rather than the generally accepted "unincorporated" territory) is also not endorsed by the United States government.  I have amended the sentence to clarify that the quote is what that UN Special Committee has concluded, and not necessarily a hard, absolute, unqualified fact. Pr4ever (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Identity 

message: I have reverted this edit. I also blocked User:Portoricensis for sockpuppetry, as that user was a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user User:Portorricensis (for details, see User_talk:Portoricensis). Though I have been involved in prior editing disagreements and reversions with this user, I don't think that my blocking him for sockpuppetry was tainted by conflict of interest. If anyone feels that I've abused my administrative powers here, feel free to discuss it with me on my talk page or to report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit by sockpuppet. Blocked user. 

message: The definition of Unincorporated Territory does not exist before 1922.  Before 1922 only exist States and Territories.
How this article could indicate that Puerto Rico was considered an unincorporated territory in the year 1900, if the definition does not exist until 1922?
Reference: In Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), the Supreme Court delineated what should and should not be considered in determining whether a territory is "incorporated" into the Union. Simply put, the Court resolved that "incorporation is not to be assumed without express declaration, or an implication so strong as to exclude any other view."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.65.236 (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unincorporated Territory 

message: Removed a large chuck of text that started off "Providences of Puerto Rico" and followed by a listing of municipalities. It made no sense under the Sports section.  If anyone thinks it should be in that section and can provide a rationale, please say so.  I am even doubtful it belonged ANYWHERE at all since such listing was already available elsewhere in the article. Mercy11 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Providences of Puerto Rico" 

message: the climate of Puerto Rico is mainly TROPICAL. the average climate is near 80 degrees farenheight in lower elevations and 70 degrees farenheight in the mountains of Puerto Rico. the rainy season stretches from April into November.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.27.203 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Climate Of Puerto Rico 

message: I reinserted the reference to the annual commemoration of the arrival of US troops on July 25, 1898 in reference to the date chosen by Gov. Muñoz Marín chose to promulgate a Constitution that had been approved over 3 weeks before.  A political genius, he used his sleight-of-hand to replace a holiday he did not like with a future "Constitution Day" holiday he would. Were it not his intention to replace one July 25 commemoration with another, it would have been more logical for him to promulgate it on July 17, his father's birthday, perhaps in Barranquitas, as the crowning achievement of Muñoz Rivera's political quest. Had he done that, naturally, we'd be celebrating "Constitution Day", not "Muñoz Rivera Day", on July 17. I have expressed the reference in a non-POV language that makes no reference to the widely discussed motivations he had in postponing the promulgation until that date.  Dissenting views are welcome in this discussion. Pr4ever (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 25 commemorations 

message: Currently, the article includes the subtitle "United States Colony" for the 1898-1952 history and "Commonwealth" for the past 7/25/52 history.  Such subtitles suggest that there was an end to the colonial relationship, and an ensuing change in status in 1952, something that a majority of Puerto Ricans (statehooders, independentistas and some PDP members, too) would consider debatable and POV.
We should agree on subtitle changes that are NPOV to replace the current subtitle texts and, after a consensus, make the changes. Pr4ever (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtitles 

message: "In 1917, the Jones Act granted Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship..."
"Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens..."
"Puerto Ricans have been granted U.S. citizenship since 1917 due to the Jones-Shafroth Act..."
"Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens..."
Two of the paragraphs are virtually identical. I would delete them if the article wasn't semi-protected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.44.208 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant Text is Redundant 

message: On March 21, 1937, a march was organized in the southern city of Ponce by the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party which turned into a bloody event when the Insular Police[21] ("a force somewhat resembling the National Guard of the typical U.S. state" and which answered to the U.S.-appointed governor Blanton Winship)[22] opened fire upon, what a U.S. Congressman and others reported were, unarmed[23] and defenseless[24] cadets and bystanders alike,[25][26] killing 19 and badly wounding over 200 more,[27] many in their backs while running away.[28][29].
Remarkable, really. I certainly don't want to suggest breaking the easy flow of inline citations here, far less the superb grammatical structure, but I have that nagging feeling that others might consider the sentence a tad unreadable. Oh well. 80.216.24.205 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peaks of readability 

message: The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/ Congressional Research Service Employment Home Page
Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.
CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective and timely, and topped the list of "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" in a 1996 survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology.http://www.cdt.org/righttoknow/10mostwanted/ 10 Most Wanted Government ocuments
As you can see on the following CRS Report for Congress on the Report RL30527 of April 17, 2000, title "Presidential Elections in the United States: A Primer" adressed the Natural Born Citizens definition.
You can find this Report on the following WikiLeaks Document Release Web Address http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL30527 of
February 2, 2009.
On the Abstract of the report indicate the following:
This report describes the four stages of the presidential election process: the pre-nomination
primaries and caucuses for selecting delegates to the national conventions; the national
nominating conventions; the general election; and voting by members of the electoral college
to choose the President and Vice President. The report will be updated again for the 2004
presidential election.
Qualifications for the Office of President (Page 6 - 7)
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice
President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35
years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.1 Most
constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the
United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.2
Under the 22nd Amendment, no one may serve more than two full terms, although a
Vice President who succeeds to the Presidency and serves less than two full years of
the prior incumbent’s term may seek election to two additional terms.
Footnote (Page 6-7)
1 Defined as including the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
2 Citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as
“natural born” citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President, provided they
meet qualifications of age and 14 years residence within the United States. Residence in
Puerto Rico and U.S. territories and possessions does not qualify as residence within the
United States for these purposes. [U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service,
U.S. Insular Areas and Their Political Development, by Andorra Bruno and Garrine P.
Laney, CRS Report 96-578GOV (Washington: Jun. 17, 1996), pp. 9, 21, 33].
I. Presidential Candidates
Qualifications for the Office of President
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice
President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35
years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.1 Most
constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the
United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.2
Under the 22nd Amendment, no one may serve more than two full terms, although a
Vice President who succeeds to the Presidency and serves less than two full years of
the prior incumbent’s term may seek election to two additional terms.''''''
Congressional Research Service reports
Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.
--Seablade (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional Research Service Report RL30527 

message: The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/ Congressional Research Service Employment Home Page
Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.
CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective and timely, and topped the list of "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" in a 1996 survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology.http://www.cdt.org/righttoknow/10mostwanted/ 10 Most Wanted Government ocuments
As you can see on the following CRS Report for Congress on the Report RL32933 of February 2, 2009, title "Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress" adressed the Developments since 2005 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as well as Washington, DC, have signaled some renewed congressional attention to the political status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its relationship with the United States.
You can find this Report on the following WikiLeaks Document Release Web Address http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Political_Status_of_Puerto_Rico:_Options_for_Congress%2C_May_29%2C_2008 of
February 2, 2009.
On the Abstract of the report indicate the following:
Developments since 2005 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as well as Washington, DC, have signaled some renewed congressional attention to the political status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its relationship with the United States.
Issues of Debate on Political Status
Brief summaries of aspects of each status option follow in order to provide basic
information on the options. The information below does not represent official
descriptions of status options, but is provided only to give general background
information. The options are presented in alphabetical order.
Commonwealth.
The commonwealth option represents a continuation of the
current status of Puerto Rico. The territorial clause of the United States Constitution
empowers Congress with the authority to regulate territories.95 Commonwealth status
for Puerto Rico is based on statutory provisions96 and the Constitution of Puerto Rico
that established a republican form of self-government. Under current federal law,
residents of Puerto Rico enjoy U.S. citizenship, but many contend that the Puerto
Rican identity reflects a degree of autonomy that enables the island to remain
somewhat separate from, but part of, the United States.97 Some support an enhanced
or “new” commonwealth status and seek changes in the current relationship to
increase the autonomy of Puerto Rico. Aspects of enhanced commonwealth
considered but rejected by Congress in 1991 and 2001 included providing the
government of Puerto Rico authority to certify that certain federal laws would not be
applicable to the commonwealth, mandating that the President consult with the
governor on appointments to federal offices in Puerto Rico that require Senate
approval, recognizing a permanent relationship between Puerto Rico and the United
States that cannot be unilaterally changed, and establishing economic relationships
with other nations.98 Concepts associated with enhanced or new commonwealth have
not been published in 2005, but the current governor has reportedly sought additional
sovereign authority that would enable Puerto Rico’s government officials to negotiate
international agreements and establish new intergovernmental fiscal relations with
the federal government.
Free Association.
This option would establish Puerto Rico as a sovereign
nation separate from, but legally bound (on a terminable basis) to, the United States.99
As a general practice, free association would be preceded by recognition that Puerto
Rico is a self-governing sovereign nation not part of the United States, because
compacts of free association are legal documents between sovereign nations. Free
association could be accompanied by a transition period in which the United States
would continue to administer certain services and provide assistance to the island for
a period of time specified in the compact. Free association could be annulled at any
time by either nation. Negotiations over free association would likely decide issues
of trade, defense, currency, and economic aid.
Independence.
Some advocates of independence contend that the cultural
identity of Puerto Ricans, and other factors, justify independence. As residents of a
sovereign independent nation, Puerto Ricans could develop closer ties to Caribbean
nations, but would likely be forced to choose between citizenship in the United States
or in Puerto Rico.100 The current unrestricted travel between the United States and
the island might end, as would federal benefits (unless specified in the enabling
legislation). Puerto Rico would, as a sovereign nation, develop its own economy,
form of government, and complete national identity.
Statehood.
Advocates of statehood contend that the full rights and
responsibilities of citizenship should be granted to residents of Puerto Rico. Political
stability, particularly as an economic development tool, is seen by some to be one
significant advantage of statehood. As residents of a state, Puerto Ricans would be
entitled to full representation in Congress, would be subject to income taxes, and
would be eligible to receive federal assistance like that provided to all of the states.101
Opponents argue that statehood would result in a loss of national identity.
--Seablade (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional Research Service Report RL32933 

message: Congressional Research Service Report RS20458
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/ Congressional Research Service Employment Home Page
Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.
CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective and timely, and topped the list of "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" in a 1996 survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology.http://www.cdt.org/righttoknow/10mostwanted/ 10 Most Wanted Government ocuments
As you can see on the following CRS Report for Congress on the Report RS20458 of August 20, 2004, title "Vieques, Puerto Rico Naval Training Range: Background and Issues for Congress " adressed the Vieques, Puerto Rico Naval Training Range controversy.
You can find this Report on the following WikiLeaks Document Release Web Address http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Vieques%2C_Puerto_Rico_Naval_Training_Range:_Background_and_Issues_for_Congress%2C_August_20%2C_2004 of
February 2, 2009.
On the Abstract of the report indicate the following:
On April 30, 2003, one day ahead of schedule, the Department of the Navy closed down its controversial live-fire training range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques and transferred the land to the Department of the Interior on May 1, 2003. On March 31, 2004, as directed by Section 8132 of the FY2004 defense appropriations act (P.L. 108-87/H.R. 2658), the Navy closed the supporting Roosevelt Roads naval station on mainland Puerto Rico. As directed by Section 8132, the Navy will dispose of the Roosevelt Roads property in accordance with the procedures and authorities of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act of 1990 (10 USC 2687).
Summary
This report discusses the controversy leading up to the closure of the U.S. naval
training range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, Congress’ legislation directing the
closure, and the potential impact of the closure on military training and readiness. For
a discussion of post-closure environmental cleanup issues at Vieques, see CRS
Report RL32533.1 On April 30, 2003, the Department of the Navy (DON) closed its
training range on Vieques. On March 31, 2004, as directed by Section 8132 of the
FY2004 defense appropriations act (P.L. 108-87/H.R. 2658), the Navy closed the
supporting Roosevelt Roads naval station on mainland Puerto Rico. This CRS report
will be updated as events warrant.
Background information
The Vieques Training Range. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a U.S.
territory in the Caribbean whose people are U.S. citizens. Vieques (pronounced vee-EHkez)
is a small Puerto Rican island a few miles east of mainland Puerto Rico. The
Department of the Navy (DON), which includes the Navy and Marine Corps, purchased
the western and eastern ends of the island between 1941 and 1950; the two DON-owned
parcels totaled about 22,000 acres, or about two-thirds of the island. Almost all of the
8,000-acre western parcel, which was used primarily as a naval ammunition depot, was
returned by DON to the Municipality of Vieques on May 1, 2001. The remaining DONowned
14,000-acre eastern parcel was used by U.S. naval and other military forces since
the early 1940s for training exercises involving ship-to-shore gunfire, air-to-ground
bombing by naval aircraft, Marine amphibious landings, or some combination. The parcel
included a roughly 11,000-acre Eastern Maneuver Area for Marine Corps ground
exercises and a roughly 900-acre Live Impact Area (LIA) designed for targeting by live
ordnance. The LIA was at the eastern tip of the island, several miles from the civilianpopulated
center section of the island, which has about 9,300 residents.Until April 1999, the Navy used the Vieques training range about 180 days per year.
Of these, about 120 days were for integrated (i.e., combined land-sea-air) live-fire
exercises (i.e., exercises with explosive ammunition) by U.S. Atlantic Fleet aircraft carrier
battle groups and amphibious ready groups preparing to deploy overseas on regular sixmonth-
long deployments to the Mediterranean Sea or Persian Gulf. Until 2001, DON
officials argued adamantly that there was no site other than Vieques where Atlantic Fleet
naval forces could conduct integrated live-fire training operations, and that such training
operations are critical to fully preparing U.S. naval forces for deployment.
--Seablade (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you pursuing here? We already mention most of the relevant parts in the prose. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional Research Service Report RS20458 

message: The introduction says PR is a main island and "a number" of smaller islands.  This is vague, as "a number" could be anything from zero to a billion, and in common use does not indicate a rough scale.  "A few dozen" is probably more accurate and much more informative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.91.7 (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a number" 

message: Congressional Research Service Report RL32533
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/ Congressional Research Service Employment Home Page
Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.
CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective and timely, and topped the list of "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" in a 1996 survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology.http://www.cdt.org/righttoknow/10mostwanted/ 10 Most Wanted Government ocuments
As you can see on the following CRS Report for Congress on the Report RL32533 of July 7, 2005, title "Vieques and Culebra Islands: An Analysis of Environmental Cleanup Issues " examines the implications of the site listing for environmental cleanup
You can find this Report on the following WikiLeaks Document Release Web Address http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Vieques_and_Culebra_Islands:_An_Analysis_of_Environmental_Cleanup_Issues%2C_July_7%2C_2005 of
February 2, 2009.
On the Abstract of the report indicate the following:
This report provides information on the listing of Vieques on the NPL, examines the implications of the site listing for environmental cleanup, indicates the status and estimated costs of cleaning up munitions and other environmental contamination on Vieques, and discusses cleanup actions and costs at nearby Culebra Island.
Summary
For decades, the U.S. Navy conducted ship-to-shore bombing exercises and
other live-fire training activities on Vieques Island and Culebra Island, located off the
coast of Puerto Rico. In response to concerns about risks to public safety, human
health, and the environment, Congress directed the Navy to close its training facilities
on Vieques Island in 2003 and to relocate them elsewhere. The Navy has begun to
investigate the presence of munitions and related contamination on Vieques to
determine the cleanup actions that will be necessary to protect human health and the
environment, and has begun the surface removal of munitions in some areas. In
1974, Congress had enacted legislation that required the Navy to cease its training
operations on Culebra Island, in response to similar public concerns. The Army
Corps of Engineers has removed some munitions on Culebra to address safety
hazards in publicly accessible areas, but has not begun a comprehensive cleanup of
the island. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Puerto Rico
Environmental Quality Board are responsible for overseeing these actions.
There has been rising public interest in the degree to which the Department of
Defense (DOD) will be required to clean up both islands. The scope of the cleanup
will depend on the type and extent of contamination found, and whether a pathway
of human exposure exists. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002
(P.L. 107-107) prohibits public access within the Live Impact Area of the former
bombing range on Vieques. Public access also may be limited in other areas due to
the presence of munitions hazards. Since denying public access is intended to reduce
safety threats, DOD may be allowed to remove fewer munitions than would be
required otherwise. However, if contamination has leached from munitions and
migrated to present a pathway of exposure, removal of more munitions may be
required to protect human health. Possible pathways include the consumption of
contaminated groundwater and contaminated fish or shellfish.
At the request of the Governor of Puerto Rico, Sila M. Calderon, EPA listed
Vieques on the National Priorities List (NPL) of the nation’s most hazardous waste
sites on February 11, 2005. Listing a site on the NPL does not affect the stringency
of the cleanup that is required or increase the availability of funding for the Navy to
perform the cleanup. Rather, it identifies Vieques as a site that warrants further
investigation to determine actions that are necessary to protect human health and the
environment. The Governor also requested that EPA list Culebra on the NPL along
with Vieques. However, EPA “elected to take no action” on its final listing decision
for Culebra at that time, and reports that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the
Army are negotiating a Memorandum of Agreement to govern the cleanup.
Regardless of the site listing decision, the degree of cleanup on either island will
depend on threats to human health and the environment and the types of remediation
that will be deemed necessary to address these threats. Whatever actions are
required, the progress of cleanup will depend on the availability of federal funding
to pay for the remediation. This report will be updated annually to track the status
of cleanup on both islands.
The information provided in this report was originally prepared at the
request of Representative Jose Serrano. It has been released in this format
for general distribution to interested Members and Committees of Congress
and their staff.
--Seablade (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional Research Service Report RL32533 

message: Why my post jsut get deleted without an answer??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.113.109 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:SPAM. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??