Talk:Puerto Rico/Archive 1

message: There are some links to Puerto Rican cities in Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Puerto_Rico which must be moved here or in one of the pages linked to from here or removed. Is it enough to have only a list of municipalities and no list of cities? -- Paddu 20:11 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
: There are no "cities" in Puerto Rico per se at the administrative level, all of them are considered municipalities (78 in total). There is no real consensus on which municipalities should be considered  "cities", although San Juan, Caguas, and Ponce are always mentioned among them. For example, from the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Puerto_Rico I can tell you that neither Culebra, nor Cayey, nor Lares, nor Salinas, nor Vieques are considered cities. Some history books mention 9 cities, while others mention 11, 7, etc. About a decade ago municipalities became autonomous, and some of the municipalities self-proclaimed to be cities. For example, the official name used in the Mayor's Office of Guaynabo is "Guaynabo City" (in English, not Spanish). --Maio 21:15, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
::Thanks. Removed the list from Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Puerto_Rico. -- Paddu 05:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Puerto Rican cities

message: Can someone direct me to a webpage where his middle name appears?  I have never heard that he was salvador.Cjrs 79 19:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
:It is, indeed... but I can't quote an article stating it... :-(  136.145.192.75 15:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anibal Salvador Acevedo Vila

message: Neutral point of view should not promote ambiguity, ruling class policy or political capitulation. This is not about politics, but about facts as they should be stated, not as “officials” and travel catalogues promote them. This is part of the reason why a project like the Wikipedia exists, to help us, the people, define the world as it is, and as we see it and live it -- without government, political and corporate oversight. 
The comment about the use of the word “territory” as being “very non-NPOV" was very inaccurate. The U.S. State Department freely uses the terms commonwealth, freely associated state, possession, territory, dependencies, protectorates or dependent area as any insular, unincorporated area, including Puerto Rico. One should not be confused by the use of “commonwealth” as part of it’s “official” name to think that it is also a defacto and exclusive category to define Puerto Rico's political status. This is very wrong and misleading. It is, however, a political maneuver that many unread people gleefully accept.
I’ve seen too many references given to the CIA World Fact Book as if it were truly just that – a “fact book.” This is dangerous in the Wikipedia context. The CIA is a foreign intelligence agency under the employment of the United States Government. Yet, you’re telling me about “neutral points of view?”
“The initiatives taken by Puerto Rico and the United States had so far failed to set in motion Puerto Rico’s decolonization process.” This is from an official statement of the Special Committee on Decolonization of the United Nations, June 13, 2005. “Decolonization” means transference of a territory out of colonial political state. 
Now you tell me who’s more neutral, the CIA or the United Nations?
Also, considering the immense history of this little island, the intro is as brief as it should be.
:"who’s more neutral, the CIA or the United Nations?" Notwithstanding the long history of accusations, one of the CIA's primary missions is to gather and present factual information. The UN does not have that as one of its missions, in fact it's a political organization, and most of its pronouncements are crafted through negotiation and for political purposes. So while the fact book shouldn't be our sole source, in the absence of very solid evidence to the contrary, it is likely to be more authoritative on points of fact than a UN political statement. Stan 15:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  On WMDs the UN was right and the CIA was wrong.  After the Iraq debacle, I don't think the CIA stands as a very credibe source.  Guettarda 16:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV or Censorship? 

message: Since I don't want to start an edit war I will like to debate here the argument of whether or not the chief of state of Puerto Rico is the president of the United States. 
*The United States of America does have ultimate power in any issues regarding Puerto Rico. But it is Congress not the president who has ultimate power over Puerto Rico.
*As far as I am concerned all executive decisions are carried out by the Governor of Puerto Rico. 
*The Constitution of Puerto Rico grants all executive power to the elected governor, and only the governor, of Puerto Rico.
*Puerto Ricans do not vote to elect the President of the United States. Can a chief of state, in a democracy, be someone for whom the inhabitants cannot vote for (or against)?
Because of the arguments above I believe that the President of The United States is not the chief of state of Puerto Rico.
--Joelito 7 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)----
All of the above assertions are correct.  The President of the United States has the same relationship with Puerto Rico as it does with any other state of the union.  The President has no special powers over the island.  Congress does have powers over the island, but i believe that they do not extend to more than it does in any other state.  I think this last assertion is debatable and I think some people may reach a different conclusion.  i am going to delete themention of the President as chief of state.  Cjrs 79 July 8, 2005 16:14 (UTC)
:He may not have any power, but he is the official head of state. The CIA says he is. Matjlav 16:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico's executive branch 

message: So, who has said that: "Puerto Rico has sometimes been said to have a "White" majority, an extinct Amerindian population, persons of mixed ancestry, Africans and a small Asian minority"
I remember in school always talking about us puerto ricans been all of mixed ancestry, spanish, african and taino. Any comments?  It is true that many puerto ricans see themselves as whites, but if you ask them they will also accept their mixed ancestry, and when the say white they just mean the color of their skin.
Cjrs 79 03:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that most Puerto Ricans consider themselves of mixed ancestry and studies have supported this belief . The reason Puerto Ricans are said to have a white majority is because the answers for question #6 of the 2000 Census  ("What is this person's race"?) did not include Puerto Rican or even Latin. Since the right answer for the question was not found Puerto Ricans answered they were white beacuse the other options where really far from the truth.  --Joelito 13:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: I was recently looking at the list of external links on the Puerto Rico article and comparing it with the external links from other countries' articles and Puerto Rico's is way too long. 
Where do we draw the line on which are worthy of keeping and which are just propaganda or advertising?. I believe advertising links are unworthy of being in an encyclopedia.
I propose that only official sites be kept in the external links section. If no objections are drawn I will proceed the deletion/cleanup process.--Joelito 17:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Since there is apparently differnet views over Puerto Rican religion I have decided to start this talk.
My opinion on the matter is that Puerto Rico is in its majority Roman Catholic. I believe that many people are trying to promote their own beliefs by creating paragraphs on religions in the main article. Some are even bold enough to state that their religion and not the Roman Catholic is a majority. 
Also is there a need to have paragraphs for small religions in the main Puerto Rico article? Shouldn't this be mentioned in a sub-article titled Religion in Puerto Rico? From what I see the majority of the religion portion of the article is dedicated to minor religions while the major religion is mentioned almost as a side note.
Finally, I urge everyone to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and as such only facts should be written. If no proof or reference can be found to back up a claim it should not be posted in ANY article. Joelito 18:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: Puerto Rico has all the atributes of a Nation: common language, common history and religion, a strong identity as puertoricans, a rich literature with poets and writers that wrote about 'being puertorican' in their stories and poems. Puerto Rico had all of this 200 years before the US invasion in 1898. When the US took power of Puerto Rico and Cuba, who were the last colonies of Spain, both were young nations already. One got it's indpendence and the other remained a colony until 1952. With the constitution of Estado Libre Asociado in 1952, Puerto Rico gained self government and entered voluntarily ,thru a plebiscite, in a political association with US that it is still debated today. vertical123 01:09, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A non-sovereign Nation 

message: I have added a little more texture to this debate by editing the section that addressed Puerto Rico's status as a state in the international community by addressing UN discussions on point. I found that the description of the "jargon of international law" was a bit incomplete as written. The changes I have made might help to clarify why Puerto Rico's classification remains polemic.  Similarly, I have discussed the referendums in more detail, since they are the staple of politics on the island, and help illustrate the barriers to reaching a consensus for deciding Puerto Rico's political status. HLS Group 3 04:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Community View 

message: for discussion:
The opening of this article ( ... Supporters of maintaining the status quo (i.e., Commonwealth status) insist that upon attaining this status, Puerto Rico entered into a voluntary association with the U.S. "in the nature of a compact", but opponents of Commonwealth disagree: according to them, Puerto Rico is no more than an unincorporated organized territory of the U.S., subject to the plenary powers of the United States Congress. According to several status polls, nearly half the population believes that Puerto Rico should join the United States as a state.) is not NPOV, it is not accurate since the constitution of Puerto Rico clearly states the relationship as a compact between the people of Puerto Rico and the United States ( official translation into english: Article 1 Section 1.  The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby constituted. Its political power emanates from the people and shall be exercised in accordance with their will, within the terms of the compact agreed upon between the people of Puerto Rico and the United States of America.)  This is not the opinion of a political group or ideology like the opening suggests. We can all argue whether this compact has been fully respected by the US or not, that is another story. 
I propose substituting this paragraph, my preference, with the name-history or meaning of Puerto Rico (from borikén to san juan to it's final name Puerto Rico) as it is standard opening in wikipedia articles or working with the current paragraph, not my preference but can work with it, into an accurate NPOV opening.--vertical 08:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely clear on what you want to do here.  If I'm reading it correctly, you want to change the current opening to say ... something other than what it says currently... but I'm not entirely clear on what you want to change it to.  I agree it's currently inaccurate (although that's an entirely different animal from NPOV) and should be corrected, but what's this about borikén => sj?  Tomertalk 07:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you look at Israel or Taiwan, to name 2 examples, there is no political 'controversy' as an opening, PR has a political theme in its opening(an inaccurate one). I am proposing some sentences that explain the origin of the name. Borikén or Borinquen was the name of Puerto Rico before the spaniards arrive, it is a taino word, after the spanish colonization the name of Puerto Rico was Isla de San Juan Bautista and it's capital was named Puerto Rico (english: rich port)...at the end, San Juan was named the capital and Puerto Rico became the name of the entire country.>User:Vertical12315:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the lead is odd.  We're agreed on that.  Do you have a proposal for what it should be changed to?  I've got some ideas...look for them in a day or so...  Tomertalk 10:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new opening 

message: I agree that Puerto Rico has some things in common with Cuba. But, the biggest difference is Puerto Rico is a US territory. Colombia, Venezuela, Panama and Dominican Republic were also former European Spanish colonies and may also suffer from the same identity crisis. Meaning people feel better of themselves if they consider themselves white and not black. That's something that is common in the western hemisphere. It could be because being black in the western hemisphere is views as a negative thing.
As far as American Indians being higher than Africans in Puerto Rico is not in fact true either. History has shown that when the European Spanish, French and English first arrived in the new world and return many of the native populations on the Caribbean had died off and many of the rest were killed by the Spanish and French.
Example document supporting this:
----
.....1493, during his second voyage, Columbus founded Isabela, the first permanent Spanish settlement in the New World, on Hispaniola. After finding gold in recoverable quantities nearby, the Spanish quickly overran the island and spread to Puerto Rico in 1508, to Jamaica in 1509, and to Cuba in 1511. The natives fared badly. Many died in one-sided armed conflict with soldiers and settlers, or in forced servitude in mines and on plantations. Others died of diseases to which they had no immunity. By mid-century, the native Ciboney of Hispaniola and western Cuba were extinct, and other tribes, including the Arawak of Puerto Rico, were nearly so. ....
http://www.nps.gov/fora/spain.htm
Most white Spanish people who are of mixed heritage in Puerto Rico are mixed with to a larger amount with Africans, who were the largest population by the time the islands were repopulated with the new comers
Saying Puerto Ricans have higher Indian traits compared to their African triats could also fall under "being black" is negative and bad. No one wants to be black when given the choice in the western hemisphere it seems, when give a choice to mark something else on a Census form.
Dominican Republic people also say the same thing like people from Puerto Rico.
 
The Census for Dominican Republic shows the following:
Ethnic groups:   
white: 16%
black: 11%
mixed (black and white): 73% 
Population: 8,950,034 (July 2005 est.) 
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/dr.html
That really means 84% of the people in Dominican Republic are black.
Haiti Population
black: 95%
mulatto: and white 5% 
Population: 8,121,622 
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ha.html
The issue of being black pops up in the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies more than it does in the former English and French colonies. In the former French and English colonies if a person has any African blood they are considered to be black. Wonder why in the former European Spanish and Portugese colonies there is a fear to be called black and wanting to be called white instead?
It seems that a main reason why someone may not want to add this topic to the Puerto Rico article could be, because they do not want people do know anything about the Demographic Controversy that is in fact a topic. Just as the article states above that was in the Orlando newspaper. It exist and it is in fact true.
......
Yeah, that's the reason, you got me....Gator (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback on adding the "Demographic Controversy" section

message: I have deleted the following paragraph: "Official economic reports tend to ignore the significant economic influence of the "Black Market" on Puerto Rican culture. Many transactions between individuals and also with businesses go unrecorded to avoid payment of Puerto Rico income taxes (25% of income over $50,000 as of 2004). Also, the illegal drug trade is a significant but undocumented source of income for the islanders. In "Pay to the Order of Puerto Rico", by Alexander Odishelidze, almost one-third of the illegal drugs that enter the United States do so via Puerto Rico, with this black market trade directly employing 100,000 to 125,000 individuals, and engaging approximately 500,000 people in collateral businesses that sustain the trade."
The reasons for the deletion are lack of references and also the only reference given is by an author considered to be biased and very POV . Also I find it difficult to place a paragraph on the drug market economy in Puerto Rico when the Economy of Colombia, a country notorious for drug traffic, does not mention its drug market economy. I do not mind re-adding the article once it is properly referenced (eg. verifiable data). I know it says that the paragraph mentions that Odishelidze's book presents this information but I would prefer that the book not be mentioned in the paragraph. It looks like advertising. The proper way is to place a note or reference on the book. Joelito 04:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: I have been watching the did you know section and have noticed that it is getting a bit large. I really like this section because most of the information presented was unknown to me. I propose that the section be remade so it resembles the did you know section in the wikipedia main page. Interesting facts could be replaced every week. I propose the creation (or modification) of a template to replace the section as it is now. I have made a modified did you know template which can be found here. New suggestions could be made at either a talk page or at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico. Also an archive of the interesting facts could be kept at either a talk page or at a newly created article. I would like to create a consensus before making any modifications to the section so I encourage everyone to please go see the template and comment on the suggestions I have presented above. Joelito 17:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! (We can also easily format the current version to match the one in your user page example).  My only concern is that I don't think there would be enough trivia out there to be able to come up with a new one every week. Although that doesn't mean that we can't have Did you know - Puerto Rico created and have all the facts listed there while the main PR page only contains a small subset of these. --Stux 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We can due it monthly. I doesn't have to be weekly. Smylere Snape 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Did You Know?

message: Discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Did You Know - Puerto Rico. One of the things being suggested is to merge the DYK article with the DYK template used in the portal and have one common store of facts. Those interested may want to participate in the discussion... ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge suggested

message: Can anyone provide a reference for the following text: "A census conducted by royal decree on September 30,1858, gives the following totals of the puerto rican population at this time, Whites 300,430 (many of the inhabitants, classed as white, have, both in their features and manners, definite traces of the Indian race), Free colored 341,015, Slaves 41,736, Unclassified 127, this cenus also clearly verifys puerto ricos diverse Ancestral heritage" ? I have searched but have yet to come up with anything. A reference would be great. Joelito 01:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1858 Census, Reference

message: What an unusual motto. I suppose it relates to John the Baptist and not Juan Ponce de León? Can someone write a little something about the history and significance of it please.
:The seal dates back to 1511 and it indeeds relates to John the Baptist which was the original name of the island and is also a quote from the book of Luke. More information may be found hereJoelito 15:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motto - John is his name

message: "He would eventually die by what he claimed was a conspiracy set in place by the U.S. Federal Government.", says the article.
The wording seems to reflect that he claimed his death was a conspiracy after he died. How can this be so? How can he say his death is due to a conspiracy if he is not dead yet? This sentence needs, at the very least, re-wording, but it should also contain some sort of reference. It is also a controversial sentence...
Hari Seldon 12:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC -6)
:I have added a reference and changed the sentence to "He would eventually die in prison while serving time for seditious conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. Government in Puerto Rico". I hope this fixes it. Anything else that can be improved?Joelito 17:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You write that he died in prison, but the source you quote says he has been pardoned in 1964 en died in Hato Rey in 1965. Otto 12:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. My mistake. Thank you for correcting the information. Joelito (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency on [[Pedro Albizu Campos]]

message: #Giving this topic a quick read, there are a number of statements that are borderline POV
#I've spent time on the Island at the naval base at Roosevelt Roads, and I can't believe this assertion in the article:
::/* Politics */ Assert FACT TEMPLATE (Citation needed) in This effectively raises costs of goods to two or three times that paid in the United States.
:::Ludicrous, it's all taxes? Aside from the fact that the cost of living 'market basket' per 'economists' is highly unlikely to be 2X or 3X costs in NYC, LA, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco which costs in the USA: Median, Average, Modal? These all vary widely region to region. 
#It is doubtful that average housing costs are anywhere near half of any of those listed cities. If things are so bad why aren't we getting more Puerto Ricans as immigrants? That wave peak in the fifties or early sixties iirc.
#Prices here 15 miles north of Boston vary widely two towns over, as do they 30 miles north in lower-middle New Hampshire, or 30 miles west in sparcer populated areas of Massachusetts.  I'll grant you that things requiring water or which take a lot of water to produce (Coca Cola, other soft drinks) are relatively expensive as they are on all the Caribean Islands—for that is a function of scarce local resources and warer is nearly always scarce at that latitude, but there are offseting cost savings as well.
#Shipping costs to an out-of-the-way location have nothing to do with costs? I have relatives on St. Thomas, and most prices iirc, are fairly similar, and if anything, more expensive in St. Thomas and the other US Virgin Islands.
#No doubt there are rural mainland towns one can call 'typical' in the US where one might make those numbers fit, but the statement needs supported by an authorative source, such as the US Dept. of Commerce. For my part, I suspect the typical town is not very typical at all.
<B>Fra</B>nkB 03:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that 2 to 3 times is almost certainly an overstatement. However, it cannot be denied that Puerto Rico's imports suffer from double tax. Taxes are paid in the U.S. port where the goods are rerouted and then Puerto Rico's 6.6% arbitrios (taxes) are also paid upon arrival. The Roosevelt Roads base did not pay these arbitrios hence things are cheaper at the base (same thing happens in Fort Buchanan). I will look for a reference for the sentence or I will remove/rewrite it all together to avoid controversy. Joelito (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASSERTING UNREF and FACT templates 

message: :Because past processes for self-determination in Puerto Rico have not had Congressional support, the political parties in power have manipulated ballot options to favor the alternative of their predilection.  The other political parties tend to resist and voice their concerns over the legitimacy of the process. Ultimately, every vote fails as either non-binding upon United States Congress or because viable and appropriate status options have been excluded from the ballot.
This is very opinionated.  Any opinions in the article on the electoral process should represent multiple perspectives and be referenced. -- Beland 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: :Puerto Ricans living on the island are not counted among the Hispanics residing in the U.S.; in fact, they are not included in the U.S. population count at all, although all Puerto Ricans are statutory U.S. citizens. Puerto Rico also is not included in the Current Population Surveys that the Census Bureau conducts to update its decennial census.
This is quite untrue, something which should be patently obvious by the fact that census data for PR is reported in other sections of this very article!  Census 2000 results can be found at http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/pr.html and yearly updates at: http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php -- Beland 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this sentence, "Puerto Ricans living on the island are not counted among the Hispanics residing in the U.S.; in fact, they are not included in the U.S. population count at all, although all Puerto Ricans are statutory U.S. citizens." was true though. Joelito (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I think I see the difference.  You mean that Puerto Rico was included in the U.S. Census, but that its population is reported separately from some "national" figure.  The wording here would definitely have to be clarified, and I'm not entirely sure one demographic category out of all the categories people in PR would fit into (being Hispanic, which not everyone there is) would bear singling out.  Anyway, is there a reference for this claim? -- Beland 00:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I do not consider the fact relevant enough to be included so we can leave it out. Joelito (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect census information removed 

message: The topic should not be listed in this article. Someone keeps adding it and it makes it seem much more of a vetnarary description. It is not helping this article. Since food is much more a biological necessity it is well-known we all need it to survive. An internal link to the topic of "Puerto Rican Gastronomy" should be created, but I say that the section does not belong in this article. It is extremely poorly written and makes it seems that all Puerto Ricans eat rice. For example, I do not. Many Puerto Ricans such as Puerto Rican Jews and Muslims also have set dietary guidelines by their religious beliefs/peers. --XLR8TION 13:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rice was brought to Spain by the Moors in the 8th century. --iMeowbot~Meow 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Food

message: There is already a section on language. To the editor submitting a seperate section on language, please refrain from doing so. The topic is redundant and is poorly written.  Dialect differences does not signify a change to language. Puerto Rican Spanish is not a pidgin language, therefore please do not paint it as so.--XLR8TION 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, the Spanish language article mentions the language's origins. There's no need to reiterate it here. Xoroa 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LANGUAGE

message: In the education part of the artical, it stated "About 99% of the population attends elementary school and 67% pursue further education". ......now I find that hard to believe that almost everyone in Puerto Rico is under the age of 11. Some one needs to clarify and fix this obvious mistake. --User:Darijo101  1:30, 8 Jul 2006
:Clearly you misunderstand the sentence. It means that 99% of people have attended or are attending elementary. Joelito (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  99% of the population is in school

message: Greater San Juan is not the only one,theres Ponce,Mayaguez,Aguadilla,Arecibo and maybe Humacao..I think I read it from the Census..
:Here is the information.  I must say it is totally ridiculous. It includes more than 25 municipios in the San Juan-Bayamón metropolitan area. Even Yabucoa is included, LOL. I will study with more detail how they obtained the data and what parameters they used for classifying the metropolitan areas. For now, I am very skeptical on the information available in this link. Joelito (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No they are not counting Yabucoa in the Caguas area. It is in the San Juan-Bayamón area which makes, to me, this information unreliable. Joelito (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metropolitan Areas of Puerto Rico 

message: Please make a disambiguation page for this topic, and a mention that this page is about the US commonwealth, not the board game
68.95.141.74 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation Page 

message: The Culture paragraph looks broken, in particular, the sentence "A popular unofficial symbol of Puerto Rico would be the : "jibaro" which struggled under the introduction by US of new traditions, cultures and festivities unlike their own in the decades of the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's. "  - rstinejr, 8 Nov 2006.
:Yes, it sucks. I will try to copyedit and clean it up. Joelito (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: It appears some one with the IP address of 67.100.190.218  has posted nonsense about Puerto Rico. He/she has encouraged his POV for a political optiopn that the island has constantly rejected for over 108 years. Is there anyway to block this user from posting nonsense again? --XLR8TION 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congress (with 2/3 of the House and a majority of the Senate) can make a state.  The territory technically does not have to do anything besides have a republican form of government.  Similarly, if every single Puerto Rican voted for statehood, Congress would not be required to grant the island statehood. Chiss Boy 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither the NPP nor any organized group of statehood supporters have ever been able to claim any so-called "mayority" in the political stage of this island. In fact, the results of all plebiscites clearly show that those who oppose statehood have always been the absolute majority. Flybd5 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet those who support independence has had a very tiny portion of the vote.  In each referenda, the largest grouping was for the status-quo, the second largest for statehood, and trailing third for independence. Chiss Boy 19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are making the Guam thing up?  At least for recent history?  Puerto Rican votes on statehood/independence/etc. make the American news; no mention of similar things in Guam come up.  And Guam has a higher per capita GDP than Puerto Rico.  It is not probable that Congress would "just ignore them."  It might reject statehood on account of Guam's small population, and it's geographic size and location, but it probably wouldn't just ignore it. Chiss Boy 20:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On GDP, GUAM's GDP was 2.5 billion compared to Puerto Rico's $78.96 billion in 2006, and the per capita GDP for Guam was a $15,000 compared to $19,100 in Puerto Rico. Source CIA FACTBOOK. And yes Guam has repeatedly pushed for an altered status, in fact using the ELA/Commonwealth status of Puerto Rico as a guideline towards statehood. However, the referendums have all been non-binding in Congress and any discussions of statehood tend to die in committee.Mad05963 09:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statehood Fanatics

message: [moved from article]
The article should point out how the United States' investment was not only little, but barely worthy of note.  An example would be the U.S. Caribbean involvement in the Sugar industry and was a major contributor on disabling one of Puerto Rico's top economic source. 
The article should also point out how Puerto Ricans only receive 1/4 of their Social Security (ex. SSI takes 100k, but a Puerto Rican will only receive 25k for his/her lifetime), how the ports are over-taxed by the federal government and other economic drawbacks that the U.S.A. exercises against the island, which does severely damage the island's economy, for undisclosed reasons. Example of the cause and effect of U.S. involvement: the elderly population is becoming unproportionately larger  to the young  population.  The cause is due to the younger population seeking jobs outside the island, because the employment in the island is almost hereditary and nonexistent.
The U.S. does not collect Federal Income tax (from paychecks) because over 50 percent of the population would be entitled for a full refund, and further display of cruel and improper taxation would trigger an U.N involvement.  Also, an increase in the bureaucracy for the sole purpose of collecting federal employment tax would be a strain on the delicate U.S budget; thus collecting is unrealistic.  Personally, it would ultimate prove Puerto Rico is part of the American Empire as a colony instead of a Free Associate State (legal term for we own you, but will not do anything for you), which would violate U.N resolution for de-colonization.  These and other issues should be explored in this article, which I'll happily post when my anger subsides.
Alexzandro Rivera
:Inserting everything you have said would make the article heavily biased plus many of your remarks are your own ideas and conclusions. Furthermore, the U.S. invested heavily in Puerto Rico's infrastructure during the first half of the 20th century and continues to inject large quantities of money into Puerto Rico via grants, aid, etc. Joelito (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  It fell under American control, and is still under American control (it is less than a state and is ruled by the Union (of American states)). Chiss Boy 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: The government of Puerto Rico issued an official document certifying the Puerto Rican citizenship. This is a historic day. It is the first time since the establishment of the constitution of 1952 (Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico)that it is officially recognized and a citizenship document is issued. The Puerto Riccan government announced that starting in about 45 days anyone born in Puerto Rico (there is pending those born outiside PR but parents are born in PR)will be able to apply for the official document that certifies the Puerto Rican citizenship. 
reference: and  --vertical 16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Puerto Rican citizenship

message: removed the statement that all of Puerto Rico's 17 lakes were man-made.  All the lakes listed by the reference are man-made, but I was wondering about Laguna Cartagena, which is natural (as was Laguna Guánica).  Also, depending on the definition of "lakes" what about the salt ponds (e.g., at Playa Santa and near the Cabo Rojo lighthouse)?  Guettarda 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Laguna Cartagena is freshwater, has open water - sounds like a shallow lake to me.  Guettarda 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is not.  If you look at the official website of the department of natural resources wild life it is described as a lagoon (it is much smaller than a lake)Cjrs 79 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lakes 

message: This sentence is quite difficult to deciever: Puerto Ricans had a per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimate of $17,700 for 2004,[1] which demonstrates a growth over the $14,412 level measured in the 2002 Current Population Survey by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.[24] In that survey, Puerto Ricans have a 48.2% poverty rate. By comparison, the poorest State of the Union, Mississippi, had a median level of $21,587, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, 2002 to 2004 Annual Social and Economic Supplements. -What is the "median level of $21,587?"- Household income? Can't be. Personal median Income? What is it compared to? To me this phrase sounds as if someone has compared Puerto Rico's GDP per capita to Mississippi's median personal income. An absolute no-no. GDP per capita mearues the economic activity in general and is not a measure of private wealth. The US for example has a GDP per capita of $42,000-yet the median personal income for those age 25+ was $32,140. While I think this is a truly great and informative article the section I mentioned above needs to bit of revising. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 07:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Income 

message: I really wish people would tell the truth..there was much more than the Spanish as far as Europeans who migrated to Puerto Rico.
and it's a lie that all Puerto Ricans are a mix of Spanish,African & Indio/Taino blood.
--Ja§
::A related but separate item, with some background comments on genetics.  The first cited article (16)indicates that the gene pool was comprised of 45% European contribution, 37% African, and 18% Native American. The second article (17) on mitochondrial DNA (inherited from the mother only) found 61.1% as having Amerindian maternal mtDNA, 26.4% as having African maternal mtDNA, and 12.5% as having Caucasian maternal mtDNA. 
::These seem contradictory, but they're not. This suggests that many more European men than European women contributed to the island population. This makes sense as it is likely that conquistadors and other invaders, merchant sailors, adventurers, labourers and so on, coming to a new land, are more likely to be male. I'm not a geneticist and I don't have a citation, so I won't edit this into the page, but perhaps someone else would like to follow up (first added 10 January 2007) formatted today. Cooker 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article in the Puerto Rico Herald talks about the results of genetic analysis which strongly suggest that the vast majority of immigrants to PR were Europeans, and that many of those mixed with the Taino population. Unless someone can find documentation showing or strongly suggesting that there was a significant component other than Spaniards for immigrants to Puerto Rico during its Spanish colonial period, I see no support for a statement saying that "there was much more than the Spanish as far as Europeans who migrated to Puerto Rico." The evidence so far points to strong support for the statement that the vast majority of our gene pool indicates Spanish/African/Taino ascendancy. Flybd5 15:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish African & Indian 

message: The phrase "colonial-Commonwealth election" does not seem neutral to me. It would make just as much sense - and be far more objective - if "colonial-Commonwealth" was omitted altogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.89.1.82 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics Section 

message: This article is becoming too long (57 kb). Even I have some trouble reading it. I'm tempted to tag it, but let's discuss it first. I think the Politics section could be shortened a bit, especially since it has its own article. - Mtmelendez 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is a mess. Please shorten it and maintain NPOV. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful what you wish for! Separate PR politics into its own page and it will burn a hole on the platter of whatever hard disk its stored on! hehehe Flybd5 13:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very long article 

message: And I quote: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Puerto Rico article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Thanks.  Cjrs 79 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk

message: In the first sentence is states that the spelling "Porto Rico" is archaic.  In know that the U.S. spelling was changed in 1932, but was it ever spelt this way in Spanish or was this just a mispelling in English?  If "Porto Rico" was an old Spanish spelling, when did it change?  I know this may be just trivia, but it has been something that has bugged me for a long time.  72.66.124.154 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this site, on 1932 May 17 "the Congress of the United States approves a law to change back the name of the island from Porto Rico back to Puerto Rico. The name had been used (spelled) erroneously as Porto Rico by U. S. Navy personnel." Another site (at Google Books) offers more background to this explanation, as well as mentioning that several other languages, but not Spanish, spell the island's name as Porto Rico. EdK 22:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if it was an error why do we keep saying is an archaic form?  An archaic form would be and old form in the spanish language.  Could we change the paragraph to say: Porto Rico (spelling used by the U.S. from 1898 to 1932) or something similar?Cjrs 79 12:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of Puerto Rico 

message: There is nothing in the Puerto Rican Constitution about official languages.  The only thing it states about languages is that for someone to hold office he/she must speak either english OR spanish.  and i quote:'Section 5. No person shall be a member of the Legislative Assembly unless he is able to read and write the Spanish or English language and unless he is a citizen of the United States and of Puerto Rico and has resided in Puerto Rico at least two years immediately prior to the date of his election or appointment. No person shall be a member of the Senate who is not over thirty years of age, and no person shall be a member of the House of Representatives who is not over twenty-five years of age. ' taken from: http://premium.caribe.net/~amvr/constitu.htm Cjrs 79 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EITHER NOT BOTH.  They had to know one of the languages NOT both languages.  Foraker Act was superseded by the constitution, which you can check on the actual congressional act confirming the constitution.  Please check your facts. And, many of these things have been discussed before and are archived discussions, why can't you check those before editing on controversial matters?  this is not the first time you've done that. take care. Cjrs 79 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say that the Foraker Act had indeed made Puerto Rico's official language both english and spanish, then how could the governor's change the law by an act of the state legislature, and then why would some congressmen be so worried about the official language of the island when discussing a law allowing puerto ricans to decide their status in the past? If indeed the forakeract had stated that the official language were to be both languages, then this would be a settled matter.  Another thing, many states issue their documents in more than one language that dones't mean that all of those are their official languages.Cjrs 79 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Mtmelendez.  I have a problem with the use of words such as some, many, certain.. without any reference.   Cjrs 79 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Languages

message: There exists an unreferenced article Puerto Rican.  It seems the content could be included here until such time that enough verifiable content could be collected to support an independent article.  I propose a merge be conducted in 14 days from today.  In the mean time, if knowledgeable editors could review the Puerto Rican article for accuracy, it would be appreciated. Alan.ca 11:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Puerto Rico article is already over 50K, and there are dozens of articles that link to Puerto Rican.  Perhaps a better solution is to move some material from this page to Puerto Rican and reference that page here. -- TedFrank 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Puerto Rican 

message: Per WP:DAB, I edited to use the otheruses4 tag. -- TedFrank 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, see WP:DAB#Links_to_disambiguation_pages.  "There is rarely a need for links directly to disambiguation pages—except from any primary topic. In most cases, links should point to the article that deals with the specific meaning intended."  I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that to mean that one shouldn't link to the disambiguation page when there is only one other use.  If your claim is that the other use is non-notable, then feel free to issue an AfD claiming a violation of WP:N, but it won't go very far, given that that claim is objectively incorrect.  If you think a different template is appropriate, please make that argument with reference to the WP:DAB policy. -- TedFrank 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now that the disambiguation page is a real disambiguation page, I've changed it back to the {otheruses} tag, which should end the disagreement. Thanks to User:Dhartung for his work. -- TedFrank 14:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:DAB]] 

message: People dont come to Puerto ricio to see about a German game but those trying to promote that game naturally would love to see it spammed inot the top of this page. We now have a disambiguation page so there aare no furthwer excuases for spamming in this unnotable game here, SqueakBox 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, see WP:DAB#Links_to_disambiguation_pages.  "There is rarely a need for links directly to disambiguation pages—except from any primary topic. In most cases, links should point to the article that deals with the specific meaning intended."  I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that to mean that one shouldn't link to the disambiguation page when there is only one other use.  If your claim is that the other use is non-notable, then feel free to issue an AfD claiming a violation of WP:N, but it won't go very far, given that that claim is objectively incorrect.  If you think a different template is appropriate, please make that argument with reference to the WP:DAB policy. -- TedFrank 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now that the disambiguation page is a real disambiguation page, I've changed it back to the {otheruses} tag, which should end the disagreement. Thanks to User:Dhartung for his work. -- TedFrank 14:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spammiong of game

message: Ok, guys... I'm confused. It seems there's a quite a few Puerto-Rican articles currently under proposal to merge. However, the merge proposals don't make any sense:
* Proposal to merge: Puerto Ricans in the United States to Puerto Rican-American 
* Proposal to merge: Puerto Rican-American to Puerto Rican
* Proposal to merge: Puerto Rican to Puerto Rico
There is no central discussion on these changes, which there should be, since the proposed changes in one merge or article significantly affect the merge of the other articles. So what's it going to be? Are we going to leave them "as is", or are we going to merge all or some of them? - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Puerto Rican and Puerto Rico should not be merged I agree also, But I don't really see anything in Puerto Rican-American that merits its existence, it isn't even a term in use by either people in the island or in the United States.Mad05963 10:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge-mania

message: This is great information about Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. It gives me great pride that I come from such a wonderful place. There was information that I did not know about Puerto Rico and by reading this it gave me a clear understanding of the history of Puerto Rico. There are many singers, actors, actresses etc. that come from Puerto Rico and I am proud that us Puerto Ricans are being recognized for our talents. Tengo mucho orgullo de mi Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican food is delicious, I can eat it everyday. Sometimes eating it too much is not healthy but I enjoy it. Since I am doing this for a class assignment I would like my fellow classmates to learn a little bit about my origin. I hope they like Puerto Rico as much as I do.{T.Acevedo, English 110}
::Glad you liked it. You know, many editors put alot of time in making the article as it is. You can help! - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Ok. I cleaned-up the Politics section without removing nor adding any information. This is a highly controversial topic and I don't want to start a fuss about it now. I simply re-arranged the body of the text to improve its organization. Now, the entire Politics section is more manageable, in that its easier to add information to the corresponding sub-section without changing the flow of information. If you feel some information belongs in a different sub-section where I originally put it, be bold and change it. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up of Politics section 

message: Hello. I think someone should include the latest events concerning Puerto Rico's political status. More information can be found  here . BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love!  11:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. That section is already bloated. It should be included in the Politics of Puerto Rico article. But if you want to add it, in either articles, then... Just Do it. Nike. ;-) - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 13:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I just meant it should be included somewhere. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love!  18:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Include it if you want, but I recommend a short and brief description, while adding detailed info in the Politics of Puerto Rico article. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics Section

message: The Jones Act and US Citizenship for PR seem to be a major reason people come to this article, which is my argument for making it a brief subsection of the PR Under US rule section. Does anyone else agree with this or is it fine to leaving it in the article as is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.22.54.72 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jones Act 

message: Why must we listen to such rubbish! This writer obviously has not traveled much. I have travel all over the world for the past 20 years back and forth to Europe and to think that Europe is only or mostly white is a dream of folks who do not live, nor have ever visted Europe. I just recently visted Southern Europe, Italy, Spain and Greece and most people that I ran into have brown eyes, Dark brown hair, and light to modestly brown skin. Funny, most look just like me, and I'm Puerto Rican. There's no shame to being what's called "latino negro". and this term implies a person has very distinct features, facial and others, that clearly show they are from african decend. The error is their insistant that Puerto Rican are mostly balck and are hiding this fact due to shame. get over it, most reliable DNA test show this is inaccurate, and at the most has been done very selectivly and skewed to prove a point. Visit the island, look at the traditional culture and then you canmake a accusrate assestment. Puerto rico orgins are a direct result of over 400 years of Spanish rule and occupation, and when balcks were brought onto the island to replenish the Taino workforce, they were forbidden to intermingle. The island has changed over the past 25 years, but that is due to the immigration of blacks from other countries.19;01, 31 May 2007
:What's with IPs today, I archived it because the page was long as I did to San Juan, Puerto Rico before it's annoying having to scroll fifty threads to get to the bottom, you want it back copy it and paste it here, but delete it from the archive to avoid double archival. -凶 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't deleted just archived, it all can be found on that little link that says "Archive 1" just above, to revive it just go there and follow the steps I previously listed. -凶 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When the Going Gets Rough... 

message: I feel this line from the Languages section implies bias in favor of the Spanish language and is misleading towards the bilingual skills of Puerto Ricans: "As of 2006, an estimated 3,860,120 people use Spanish as their primary language; English is the primary language of 82,000, which is less than 2.2% of the population. The large majority of residents living in metropolitan areas are bilingual, or at least understand and speak English to a certain extent." The phrase "to a certain extent" bothers me the most as it implies that the majority of the population barely have a beginner's understanding of the English language (an entirely false statement). If the implication in the previous lines was true, how could anyone explain why movies come to the island subtitled instead of dubbed (and even offer subtitled versions of movies when moves do come dubbed) or why every cable tv station is in English? And what about the whole phrasing for primary and secondary languages; is it even possible to accurately measure this in a bilingual culture? Is the source for that line 100% verifiable and trustworthy?
Lastly, why is Spanglish not addressed at all? Isn't the fact that people use the word "parking" instead of "estacionar" (among many other things) worth mentioning in this so-called Languages section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.22.54.72 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages section 

message: I've cleaned up the external links section removing links to specific subjects related to Puerto Rico, such as the UPR, political parties, government agencies, etc. Some links related to the Puerto Rican independence movement were even included in bold while all others weren't, which I believe is a clear evidence of spamming links. I also added a notice in the page, but not before verifying that these links were already included in their corresponding articles.
Wikipedia policy clearly states that "Links normally to be avoided include... sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject," and that "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject." Additionally, "links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." I encourage all users to whiz through Wikipedia's policy on External Links and Spam before adding new ones to this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links - Spam 

message: I went in there and changed the IPA pronunciation so that it reflects the way Puerto Ricans actually talk.  Us Puerto Ricans don't speak "standard" spanish and don't appreciate a bunch of people sitting in Spain telling us how to pronounce the name of our own island.-User:192.156.58.34
:I'm the guy. Well, there could be conflicting views on this. Puerto Ricans have different pronunciations of various words, given their mixed ethnic and cultural background. But if you're going to standardize the pronunciation, please provide sources. Otherwise, its just basic Original Research. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 11:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like the person that made the changes is actually making fun of puerto rican pronunciation. I'm from Puerto Rico, and I know that we don't say puelto even if it sounds like that.  Plus, what are we supposed to do know, go to every article and find out how people in that country pronounce it and change it? The purpose of the article is to give the standard, most accepted pronunciation. I'm with Mtmelendez, and I agree with his revert.  Actually I would revert until the other person could give proof of his pronunciation.  After all, aren't we supposed to be bold when ediditng?Cjrs 79 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the guy who changed the pronunciation 

message: Can residents of Puerto Rico vote for US presidency and congress or not? Dan Gluck 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This brings an important point. If users continue to asks basic questions on Puerto Rico's political status, then there's a problem with the article. Such information is important, and should be clear to the reader, as Dan Gluck pointed out. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear important point

message: From: Antrhop Keen
Date: June 1st, 2007
Why does someone keep taking off the illustrative pictures about Puerto Rico, including the photo that alludes to slavery in that country's history?
Best regards,
Anthrop
:As El C said and I quote "too many images in odd places, unconventional bolding of acronyms and so on" besides this most of the added images are in no way related to Puerto Rico most of the images are from other islands in the Caribbean and the slavery image is not from Puerto Rico. There is no need to have the insignia of the political parties if there is a link to the main article in there and the image in the lead is unnessesary and aganist Wikipedia's manual of style. Your acts of sockpuppetry are also aganist policy. --凶 21:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When the Going Gets Rougher, and Slavery is attempted to be concealed... 

message: Should this Press Release by the U.N. be summarized and the source included in the article; the current article seems to be outdated on this matter, since it doesn't include the latest significant developments and change in lanaguage coming from the U.N.'s Decolonization Committee, don't you think?
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/gacol3160.doc.htm
Responsible Responsibility 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: U.N.'s latest developments regarding Puerto Rico

message: Out of curiosity, after looking up the political situation of Puerto Rico, it looks like it will become the 51st state, albeit one with a Hispanic culture. Is this true?--Lionheart Omega 22:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If statehood wins, it probably will be a unussual kind of it there are several communities that will defend some sort of independent representation, most notably in sports there will be arguments of Puerto Rico's ability to make successful teams by themselves and they will probably point at the accomplishments of the basketball, baseball and volleyball teams to prove their points. -凶 01:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No you misunderstood me, I meant that these communities would pressure the existence of independent representation even if the country became a state. And in my opinion they would probably get the support of the Olympic community on this aspect. -凶 02:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ultimate status of Puerto Rico 

message: The place is known for having a portion of the Bermuda Triangle nearby and is where the "La Chupacabra" first appeared. Google Chupacabra, Puerto Rico for more. 205.240.144.168 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah about that, no matter how much History Channel's UFO Files series makes the viewer believe Puerto Rico is a "Hot Spot" that is quite far from truth, the last report of el Chupacabras that I saw televised on a news program in here was back in 2002. Paranormal matters here just don't seem to be considered significant, probably since most of them are discovered to be hoaxes shortly after or because sports and politics take priority. -凶 01:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paranormal Matters

message: Ceiba is more correct, as Kapok is an specific species, which is not stated by sources as being the same species as being the official tree of Puerto Rico. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official tree of Puerto Rico is the Kapok or Ceiba pentandra. Ceiba, although the common name for the species in Puerto Rico, is actually the name of the genus of this tree and it is, therefore, more ambiguous than Kapok. Joelito (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Where can we get the source for this? Thanks!--Cerejota 06:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption, Kapok tree to [[Ceiba]] 

message: I think we should add more information about the hurricanes that have passed by Puerto Rico, and include images like :Image:Hurricane Dean 145 81807 3-15 UTC.jpg, :Image:Hurricane Georges 20 sept 1998 1445Z.jpg, or :Image:Hugo 1989 track.png and :Image:Hurricane Hugo 1989 sept 21 1844Z.jpg (info here). --Boricuaeddie 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricanes 

message: There should be a section which documents that there are Puerto Ricans that do indeed still consider Puerto Rico a colony of the United States but under a different name. 67.53.78.15 00:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Martin Koppel in the introduction to "Puerto Rico independence is a necessity"  copyright 1998 "In 1954, Rafael Cancel Miranda, together with Andres Figueroa Cordero, Irving Flores, and Lolita Lebron, carried out an armed protest in the US Congress in Washington, D.C., in oder to draw international attention to Puerto Rico's colonial status."  Even though this was 1954, it shows there were Puerto Ricans who resisted, in this case violently, what they still considered colonial domination67.53.78.15 01:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll look for more sources and add it. Thanks. --Boricuæddie 00:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: colony

message: many sports that puerto rico play are well known as
baseball 
basketball
biking, skating 
boating and sailing 
bowling 
caming
cock fighting
cycling racing
diving 
fishimg
golfing 
racing
horse racing
surfing
swimming
tennis 
wind surfing
and last but not least 
volleyball  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.41.27.182 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got references? --Agüeybaná 14:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really. See football. --Agüeybaná 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, its still called "football" everywhere in the world excluding the United States because they have their own version of "football", there is a reason for the title of the article Football (soccer). - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sports  

message: I came across the Dominican illegal immigration to Puerto Rico page and after reading it raised a question.  Are there other nationalities that are coming into Puerto Rico illegally in large numbers, or is it primarily just Dominicans?  Perhaps this should be incorporated into this article.--Wambeter 09:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal immigration to Puerto Rico? 

message: Puerto Rico enters at #36 ( out of 131 countries that are included) at the World Economic Forum (WEF) yearly report. It is the first time Puerto Rico has a country profile and it is included in the yearly Index report. The WEF website says "The Global Competitiveness Report series has evolved over the last three decades into the world’s most comprehensive and respected assessment of countries’ competitiveness, offering invaluable insights into the policies, institutions, and factors driving productivity and, thus, enabling sustained economic growth and long-term prosperity."
Related links and reference: 1) WEF Global Competitiveness Index Report 2007 2) WEF Website WEF --Royptorico 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WEF Country Profile for Puerto Rico 

message: I think that this section has too apologetic a tone, especially the second paragraph. It sounds as if it is trying too hard to refute those who claim that Puerto Ricans do not pay enough taxes toward the US government for the benifits they enjoy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.222.28 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political status within the United States 

message: I've been digitizing color slides taken in Puerto Rico in the 1940s and 50s for two years now and have over 1,500 photos online at www.flickr.com/photos/tlehman/.  These cover most aspects of life in Puerto Rico at the time: agriculture, scenery, towns, transporation, housing, etc.
I believe this would be a useful link to add in the Photos section of Further reading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlehman (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is "further reading" (emphasis added). How is Flickr something to read? Great work, by the way. --Agüeybaná 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to site of color photos of Puerto Rico in the 1940s and 1950s 

message: Puerto Rico has one of the most competitive radio markets yet there were barely any wikipedia articles on radio stations in the market.  Nearly all the stations have stub pages now but include mostly technical details. Any help on improving these articles, particularly with historical information would be appreciated.  See :Category:Radio stations in Puerto Rico category for a list. --Rtphokie 12:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever grapples with this issue should note that Puerto Rico enjoys no satellite radio coverage---neither XM nor Sirius beam their signal to PR.  This fact makes it less attractive for these systems to include Hispanic broadcasts since they don't reach 9% of the US's Hispanic market---the 3.9 million living in PR.  I believe that the PR Senate announced a bill regarding XM and Sirius' consent to merge petition before the FCC.Pr4ever 14:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  radio stations 

message: Front page news in all the newspapers in PR. A landmark date for the PR national volleyball team. It defeated the US team for the first time in 30 years in the World Cup being held in Japan. The newspaper El Nuevo Dia called this game "Historico triunfo sobre EEUU" (Historic triumph against US team). reference:  and El Nuevo Dia (in spanish)  . Something to be add in the sports article of PR --Royptorico (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember that this is a general article on Puerto Rico and should cover broad topics not specific recent details. See summary style for more information. Joelito (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports- PR national team (volleyball) defeats US national team 

message: I have undone the massive reverts done by Joelr31 because of alleged "political squabbling" and because it is a "summary article".
1-the "government type" is not a "self-governing Commonwealth".  First, PR is not fully self-governing and "commonwealth" does not describe with any specificity what PR is.  It is only the name given to the body politic.  "Commonweath" is the name of four states, that are entirely different from the Queen of England's realm, also called a "Commonwealth".  The phrase "Republican three-branch" is a very specific one-meaning-permitted description of the type of government in Puerto Rico. 
2-population ranks-Puerto Rico is under United States sovereignty.  Thus, it somewhat political to rank it in comparison to nations that are sovereign.  However, fully respecting that view, I added the rankings in comparison to the other jurisdiction within the United States, not replaciong the world rankings.  To eliminate one or the other could be considered "political squabbling".  To respectfully retain both is not political squabbling.
3-I have previously explained and discussed why PR is "partially self-governing"
4-the phrase self-governing is a hyphenated, not unhyphenated phrase.
5-Grito de Lares-My edits add several important facts.  First, what is "Lares".  Second, if you're going to revert the phrase "two-day-long" because this is a summary, why not edit out, for the same reason, "small but significant", and  the 26-word references to Betances and Ruiz Belvis.  It should all remain, in spite of being a summary article.
6-Referring to Spain as "who" sounds less correct than "which".  Is there any grammatical basis to revert my edits, because it certainly has nothing to do with the two excuses (summarization and political squabbling) used to justify the wholesale revert of my edits.
7-It is totally incorrect that the July 25, 1898 invasion happened "at the outbreak of" the war.  As a matter of fact, it was virtually at the end of active hostilities.  I could have written "nearly at the end of" but simply inserted the very neutral NPOV word "during".  What's the justification to revert that?
8-Adding 9 words to expand on "Natural disasters", without specifically mentioning the West Coast earthquake and tsunami and the names or dates of San Ciprian, San Ciriaco hurricanes, etc, doesn't really change the "summary" nature of the articles.
9-Piñero and Muñoz' titles-The titles describing the prior positions held by the first Puerto Rican governors before being appointed/elected to that job are relevant facts that only add 4 words to the summary.
10-If you choose to mention "La Isleta de San Juan" the mistake that it is "known as Old San Juan" has to be corrected, either by eliminating the mistake or correcting it, as I did, to explain that it "includes Old San Juan and Puerta de Tierra.  As a matter of fact, most of the population and the geographic territory of the Isleta is in Puerta de Tierra and not the minuscule barrio known as Old San Juan.
11-El Yunque-what's the problem with mentioning that it's one of thew highest peaks, instead of simply "located".  It only adds 11 characters!!!
12-Providing San Juan and Puerto Rico's lowest temps ever draws more attention than simply the 82 degree avg temp.
13-The edit closest to the allegation of "Political squabbling" would be my edit explaining that statehood supporters saw the "Spanish Only law" as "another attempt to move the islands away from eventual statehood".  However, I was very careful to simply paraphrase existing text describing how many people saw Rosselló's Spanish/English law as "another attempt to move the island (sic) closer to statehood".  If my edit is reverted, so should the identical existing text be reverted.
14-San Juan/St. Augustine.  It is a major fact that should not be reverted from any summary that San Juan is the oldest city under the American flag.
15-Ratify/approve-What's the problem with this edit?
16-To state that there is a compact between PR and the US is a matter for politicalk debate.  To state that there was an approval "in the manner of a compact" is uncontradicted fact.
17-If mentioning and listing consulates is important, a mention of the unusual relations between PR and the Vatican is important, too.
18-The reversion of my correction regarding national delegates leaves in place the entirely false existing text that PR is "not accorded equal-proportional representation" in both national parties.
19-Existing text that PR is an "independent taxation authority by mutual agreement with the U.S. Congress" is totally false.  Congress frequently modifies tax laws applicable to PR without seeking a "mutual agreement" with PR.  Examples include elimination of Sec. 936, creation of temporary Sec. 30A, amendment of Sec. 199, etc.  My edits eliminated that falsity and provided neutral, factual correcions.
20-The summary should never exclude the fact that PR now has four registered politicalk parties, not three and that the fourth is non-political status-based.
My edits may not be perfect but if any one of them are to be reverted, it should be done in an individual, not wholesale, basis, as would be done with a vandal, and each revert should be explained, at least briefly, in order to demonstrate respect for the time and effort invested in preparing the edits.Pr4ever (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some edits are fine but others are just subtle political positions. There was so much wrong with the edits (not just yours) that it was easier to do a large revert than to correct/ammend what was incorrect by Wikipedia standards. Your edits have been reverted constantly (not just by me) so there is something non-POV about them. Joelito (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You re-inserted the subtle political POV (without references again) and the unnecessary details again but since I do not have neither the time nor the desire to make you see the error of your ways I will leave the debate to other people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelr31 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Political squabbling" 

message: Guys, you seem smart. This constant reverting is unseemly. Just take each issue one at a time. Check the sources. One by one. Give it a try; you might be surprised by how well it works. But please, no more of this wholesale reverting. SamEV (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One at a time 

message: Semblances of Sovereignty is a book by T. Alexander Aleinikoff that deals with the U.S. Constitution, the conditional state of the US State's and the US Citizenship since the end of the 19th century. Alexander argues that citizenship should be "decentered" and understood as a commitment to an intergenerational national project, not a basis for denying rights to immigrants.
===Author Information===
T. Alexander Aleinikoff is the Dean of the Georgetown University Law Center and the Executive Vice President of Georgetown University. He has written on immigration refugee, citizenship law and policy, constitutional law, statutory interpretation and race discrimination. His most recent books include, Migration and International Law (2003); Semblances of Sovereignty: The Constitution, the State and American Citizenship (2002); Citizenship Policies for an Age of Migration (2002); and Modern Constitutional Theory (1999). He is a graduate of Swarthmore College and Yale Law School.
===Summary===
Semblances of Sovereignty supports the idea of abandonment from plenary power cases and advocates a new flexible conception for sovereignty and citizenship. According to T. Alexander Aleinikoff, the federal government ought to negotiate compacts with Indian tribes and the territories that affirm more durable forms of self-government. The book also accounts a beautiful narrative about a certain World Fair. 
===Substance===
* Sovereignty Cases and the Pursuit of an American Nation-State
* Citizen-State from the Warren Court to the Rehnquist Court
* Commonwealth and the Constitution 
:(The Case of Puerto Rico)
* The Erosion of American Indian Sovereignty
* Indian Tribal Sovereignty beyond Plenary Power
* Plenary Power, Immigration Regulation and Decentered Citizenship
* Reconceptualizing Sovereignty 
:(Towards a New American Narrative)
Category:2002 books
(Lew Basnight IV (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just browsed the first part of the intro to this book here. Interesting. What do you think is its relevance to this article? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semblances of Sovereignty (book) 

message: * Sovereignty Cases and the Pursuit of an American Nation-State
* Citizen-State from the Warren Court to the Rehnquist Court
* Commonwealth and the Constitution 
:(The Case of Puerto Rico)
* The Erosion of American Indian Sovereignty
* Indian Tribal Sovereignty beyond Plenary Power
* Plenary Power, Immigration Regulation and Decentered Citizenship
* Reconceptualizing Sovereignty 
:(Towards a New American Narrative)
Category:2002 books
(Lew Basnight IV (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Substance

message: :I just browsed the first part of the intro to this book here. Interesting. What do you think is its relevance to this article? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I just undid the edit that eliminated the reference to the President of the United States as Puerto Rico's Head of State.  The edit was based on the fact that PR does not elect the President.  Many countries/nations/países/sovereign entities/territories/colonies (I'm being as inclusive as possible) don't elect their heads of state.  Take a look at Canada and you'll see that their monarch/head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, is also not elected.  One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is consistency.  Whoever wants to edit out the President as PR's head of state should edit FIRST every article on the dozens of former British colonies and eliminate reference to their enelected Head of State before medling with PR again.  A Wikipedia article should not be a reflection of how we want the world to be, but how the world is in fact.  Let's keep our politics out of this article and, if in doubt, let's be inclusive and respectful of all POV's.Pr4ever (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, if the other articles are wrong, there's no reason to insist that someone fix them "FIRST" before fixing this one. That's really not how Wikipedia works. Decisions about this article are based on what's best for this article, not on how other articles work.  What you said about Wikipedia reflecting the world as it is, and not as we'd like it to be, is entirely correct. I'd like to see some comments from those who support eliminating the reference to the President of the US as Puerto Rico's head of state. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of State 

message: We need to resolve these infobox disputes so that the article can be unlocked and normal editing can resume...
===Head of state issue===
* Some editors have claimed that no constitution or law explicitly makes the President of the United States the "head of state" of Puerto Rico.  I assume this is true, though I invite citations if it is not.  I briefly looked through the Constitution of the United States, and I found nothing in there which makes the President the head of state of the United States, either.  Due to the politically charged nature of Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States, I think it would be a good idea to include a note that this designation is de facto.
* How do we evaluate the claim that the President of the United States is the de facto head of state of Puerto Rico?  The head of state article gives some criteria, including responsibility for foreign affairs and the military, which are mostly handled by the U.S. executive.  However, our article on governors hint that the governors of U.S. states perform the ceremonial "head of state" functions for the state but not the country, and Puerto Rico has separate representation in certain international organizations which U.S. states do not (according to the CIA World Factbook).  Because this issue is a matter of interpretation and is politically charged, I think we cannot make this decision ourselves, but must defer to published sources.
* The claim that the President of the United States is the head of state of Puerto Rico is currently unreferenced; the best reference for this I could find is the CIA Factbook entry.  This could be considered a primary source, since the CIA is part of the government of the United States, and so should know through personal contact who the head of state is.
* Some editors seem to consider the CIA a biased source, which would be reasonable if there were a controversy between the governments of the United States and Puerto Rico over who the head of state is. Some of the sources cited seem to establish the Governor as "head of government" but leave open the question of who the "head of state" is.  No one seems to dispute that the United States President has significant duties with regard to the foreign and military affairs of Puerto Rico, so the CIA claim seems plausible.  Are there any notable published opinion-makers or reputable authorities on the subject who deny the claim that the President of the United States is the "head of state" of Puerto Rico?
* The issues of sovereignty and federation are related; see the next section.
I would propose that unless anyone can cite contradictory sources: 
* "(de facto)" should be added to the "head of state" line 
* A reference to the CIA Factbook entry should be added. 
* The footnote should clarify: "The President of the United States has primary executive responsibility for the foreign and military affairs of Puerto Rico, but Puerto Rico has separate representation in some international bodies.  The Governor of Puerto Rico also serves executive, symbolic, and military functions similar to the governors of U.S. states." 
-- Beland (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: United States Commonwealth
...which is what the introduction of the article currently uses.
For referencing purposes, we could add the State Department reference, we could reference the Constitution and U.S. laws that establish the relationship, or we could defer references to the article Commonwealth (United States insular area), which can explain in-depth.  I'm leaning toward adding the State Department reference with a note attached to see the Wikipedia article, but I could be swayed if other editors have opinions.
-- Beland (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: United States with a Commonwealth arrangement.
Dongolo (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox wars 

message: * Some editors have claimed that no constitution or law explicitly makes the President of the United States the "head of state" of Puerto Rico.  I assume this is true, though I invite citations if it is not.  I briefly looked through the Constitution of the United States, and I found nothing in there which makes the President the head of state of the United States, either.  Due to the politically charged nature of Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States, I think it would be a good idea to include a note that this designation is de facto.
* How do we evaluate the claim that the President of the United States is the de facto head of state of Puerto Rico?  The head of state article gives some criteria, including responsibility for foreign affairs and the military, which are mostly handled by the U.S. executive.  However, our article on governors hint that the governors of U.S. states perform the ceremonial "head of state" functions for the state but not the country, and Puerto Rico has separate representation in certain international organizations which U.S. states do not (according to the CIA World Factbook).  Because this issue is a matter of interpretation and is politically charged, I think we cannot make this decision ourselves, but must defer to published sources.
* The claim that the President of the United States is the head of state of Puerto Rico is currently unreferenced; the best reference for this I could find is the CIA Factbook entry.  This could be considered a primary source, since the CIA is part of the government of the United States, and so should know through personal contact who the head of state is.
* Some editors seem to consider the CIA a biased source, which would be reasonable if there were a controversy between the governments of the United States and Puerto Rico over who the head of state is. Some of the sources cited seem to establish the Governor as "head of government" but leave open the question of who the "head of state" is.  No one seems to dispute that the United States President has significant duties with regard to the foreign and military affairs of Puerto Rico, so the CIA claim seems plausible.  Are there any notable published opinion-makers or reputable authorities on the subject who deny the claim that the President of the United States is the "head of state" of Puerto Rico?
* The issues of sovereignty and federation are related; see the next section.
I would propose that unless anyone can cite contradictory sources: 
* "(de facto)" should be added to the "head of state" line 
* A reference to the CIA Factbook entry should be added. 
* The footnote should clarify: "The President of the United States has primary executive responsibility for the foreign and military affairs of Puerto Rico, but Puerto Rico has separate representation in some international bodies.  The Governor of Puerto Rico also serves executive, symbolic, and military functions similar to the governors of U.S. states." 
-- Beland (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Head of state issue

message: Our article on sovereignty indicates that the issue of whether individual states in a federation are sovereign is a matter of interpretation.  There are plenty of references to the sovereign powers of individual U.S. states in law and dictionaries and whatnot, and our List of sovereign states has special notes about federations and dependent territories.
There is a reference  for just saying "United States" for Puerto Rico sovereignty, but clearly this does not give the whole picture.  Even that reference describes the entities listed as areas of "dependencies and areas of special sovereignty", which is a bit different than fully-integral areas.  Our article Commonwealth (United States insular area) describes the special relationships that Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands have with the U.S. federal system.  
I would propose using the following for the Sovereignty line:
:United States Commonwealth
...which is what the introduction of the article currently uses.
For referencing purposes, we could add the State Department reference, we could reference the Constitution and U.S. laws that establish the relationship, or we could defer references to the article Commonwealth (United States insular area), which can explain in-depth.  I'm leaning toward adding the State Department reference with a note attached to see the Wikipedia article, but I could be swayed if other editors have opinions.
-- Beland (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: United States with a Commonwealth arrangement.
Dongolo (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sovereignty

message: I made a minor disambiguation link fix, changing Kongo to link instead to Kongo people. I see that the page is protected, but it doesn't seem to be about the Kongo issue so I went ahead with the change.  Another possible target instead of "Kongo people" is Kingdom of Kongo.  There are also other options at the disambiguation page Congo.  If anyone would like something different, please feel free to speak up. --Elonka 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kongo

message: There is a great error.
Columbus has arrived in Puerto Rico in November 1493, and not George Clooney! Stephan Sem (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That must have been a piece of vandalism or a "funny" test edit. It seems to have been fixed now. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: I don't know why this article is protected from editing, but it should be labeled as such. — Reinyday, 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for the heads up. I hadn't noticed either. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked 

message: I'm not following this article closely, but I noticed that this edit earlier today added the words "non-voting" to the lead section sentence: "The Jones-Shafroth Act or Jones Act, a 1917 statute sponsored by Representative William Atkinson Jones on the United States Congress conferred non-voting U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans."  I have deleted the words "non-voting", which I feel inject political POV into this lead section sentence.
The sentence requoted above is true enough, with or without the words "non-voting". However, it is a fact that neither Mr. Jones, nor Mr. Shaforth, nor Mr. Foraker (whose earlier Foraker Act — First Organic Act of Puerto Rico — was, I understand, amended by the Jones-Shafroth Act), nor the entire Legislative and Executive branches of the U.S. government acting together, in concert, in unison, united behind the purpose, had then or currently do have the authority to grant voting rights to Puerto Ricans ("Puerto-Rican", here, meaning a U.S. citizen neither a "person of" any particular U.S. State nor of the DofC, nor a member of the U.S. Uniformed Services, nor otherwise in a special-case situation vis-a-vis voting rights).
No, the Jones-Shaforth act did not grant voting rights to Puerto Ricans. Also, neither Mr. Jones nor Mr. Shaforth stopped beating their wives. Both the question of adding the words "non-voting", and the question of wife-beating on the part of Jones and Shafforth, involve a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of many questions. Please also see Voting rights in the United States#Overseas and nonresident Citizens for a bit more info on the subject of U.S. voting rights for nonresident citizens and see "nonresident citizens?" in this talk page for a bit of discussion about that from an angle which applies to the case of Puerto-Ricans but doesn't come at the topic from a Puerto-Rican-specific angle. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, Puerto Ricans were granted "voting" citizenship.  When a Puerto Rican U.S. citizen moves to a state, precisely because he or she was granted US citizenship in 1917, they may vote to select the electors of that State to the Electoral College.  In Puerto Rico they may not vote for electors, not because their US citizenship is flawed but because, as a territory, Puerto Rico has no representation in the Electoral College.  Thus, the phrase "non-voting" was correctly removed, but for the wrong reason, not because of POV but because it is incorrect.Pr4ever (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A problem with this purported matter of fact is that it presumes that "voting" and "non voting" are two separate catagories of "citizenship", and that persons or groups of persons can be granted "citizenship" in either the "voting" or the "non voting" category.  This presumption is false. U.S. citizens derive voting rights through being a "person of" (simplify that as "citizen of" or "resident of" for most practical purposes) one of the several U.S. States and/or (since the 23rd Amendment) through the DofC. The question of whether or not these citizens are "Puerto Ricans" doesn't enter into it at all.  However, mox nix. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, residents of Puerto Rico do vote in the primaries, but not the general elections. Their delegate in Congress can also vote in committee, but not on the floor. SamEV (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, the Resident Commissioner does vote on the floor, but if his vote is decisive, they revote the issue without him so, while his vote counts in committee (that's why "W" called Fortuño to ask for his vote in committee re the Turkey resolutrion recently) it doesn't on the floor.Pr4ever (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. Thanks! SamEV (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting addition of "non-voting" to lead section sentence as  implicit POV 

message: This Puerto Rico article is currently subject to current events in regards to its political status. These events, as we all know, are inherently controversial, so we must exercise due care in maintaining verifiable and sourced facts, as well as a neutral point of view. I've seen sourced additions to the article which I welcome, but some are being used to possibly push an agenda. In the Recent developments on status section, sourced information about the Task Force report and AAV's response was added adding important insight to current developments. However, the wording stated that AAV's letter was a proclamation of official Puerto Rico government policy on the Commonwealth status, when the letter was actually a rebuttal criticizing the Task Force report. 
The paragraph in question of the AAV letter (pg. 2, par.4) says the following: if the Task Force and the Bush Administration stand by their 2005 conclusions, then for over 50 years the U.S Government has perpetuated a “monumental hoax” on the people of Puerto Rico, on the people of the United States and on the international community. 
However, the Wikipedia article stated the following: Referring to the current Commonwealth status, the pro-autonomy Governor (President of the Popular Democratic Party), recently proclaimed Puerto Rico is the victim of a "monumental hoax", a position shared by the remaining two-major parties: New Progressive Party and the Puerto Rican Independence Party. Thus, according to Gov. Acevedo Vila’s letter, the official Puerto Rico Government’s public policy with respect to the status of the country is: that “the US Government has perpetuated a ‘monumental hoax’ on the people of Puerto Rico, on the people of the United States and on the International community”. The bolding of text was included in the original text, against MOS guidelines, and the last sentence was included twice in the same section for reasons which I assume were errors during editing.
 
I have removed the text for the following reasons: first, and most importantly, the paragraph in the article is completely redundant to the paragraph that immediately followed it, which actually included the entire paragraph of the AAV letter and maintains a NPOV; and second, nowhere on the letter does it say that the official Puerto Rico Government’s public policy on the status issue is a monumental hoax, that was inferred by the user who added the paragraph.
I hope this explains my actions. Feedback is welcome. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, because of the unique electoral results in 2004, AAV can't speak for the "Government" but for the branch that he heads, the Executive Branch, especially in political status-related matters.  The NPP-controlled Legislature, as voiced by Senate Pres. MacClintock in his letter to Sec. Rice, does not believe that the US perpetrated a hoax at the UN in 1953 because it is their belief that the official US position did not include a false representation that the US believed that PR had ceased to be a territory.  In fact, I heard him mention in an interview today that the new White House report and a response letter from the State Dept. confirmed the veracity of his position.  Second, AAV's letter was simply a follow up to the apparently negative response by White House Task Force members to his Oct. 23 personal appearance, where he hads brought up the hoax argument.Pr4ever (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely to date with this, but didn't Acevedo Vila said something about not supporting the United States in international matters? I think that deserves mention. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, but I haven't found a source. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 17:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent developments on status 

message: Everyone please read WP:Lead to understand what a lead section is supposed to be. It is an overview of the article not a political rambling of what people might think about Puerto Rico. 
This article's lead should mention sports, geogrpahy, culture, history, etc not just politics. Please let's work toward a proper lead. Joelito (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most logical thing that I have read on this talk in months. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree with this sentiment -- I found the lede to be in serious need of trimming, and that much of the material included there should instead be dealt with in the body of the article, if at all.  I made a few minor changes in that direction, but I lack the knowledge of the subject required to do an in-depth re-working, and in any case I'm hesitant about traipsing through this particular political minefield.  Somebody, however, needs to do it, and quick, before WikiTaggers come by and slap a half-dozen or so clean-up tags on it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone familiar with IPA spelling add the adecuate one to this article? - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WAY TOO LONGMantion (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section 

message: I moved the following from the Political status within the United States section of the article:
:Current status legal restrictions apply only to the Puerto Rico territory, but not to its citizens. Any US Citizen, even those born in PR, may vote for the US president and US Congress from any other part of the world. Conversely, no US citizen may vote for federal level positions from Puerto Rico. This is why many thinkers believe the territory is treated by the US Congress as colonies.
This paragraph, as written, is supported by a cite of
*Trias Monge, Jose; Puerto Rico: Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World; Yale University Press; ISBN: 0300071108.
I have not seen the supporting cite, but the paragraph itself strikes me as badly distorted by PR-centric POV.  It might be made more correct by rewriting it something like the following:
:Current status legal restrictions apply only to US citizens residing outside of the 50 US States and the District of Columbia. Any US Citizen may vote for the US president and US Congress from any part of the world, including Puerto Rico, if (as a practical matter) that citizen maintains a residence in one of the 50 US States. No US citizen not maintaining such a residence, barring certain exceptions such as those made for members of the U.S. Uniformed Services, may vote at the federal level. This is why many thinkers with a PR-centric POV believe the territory is treated by the US Congress as colonies.
Actually, rather than correct it by removing PR-centric POV, I think this is best simply left deleted.  -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch your words, "PR-centric POV" is a baseless accusation how would you feel if somebody said your work is based on American-centric POV or Phillipine-centric POV its better for you to stay away from this page as its quite apparent that you have a POV of your own. 24.138.194.251 (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Scuse me. I wasn't trying to insert a pro-PR or anti-PR or pro-US or anti-US or pro-anything or anti-anything POV on this. I was trying to use the suffix "-centric" ("pertaining to or situated at the center; central.") in "PR-centric POV" to communicate my impression that the writer of this paragraph apparently places undue weight on the importance of a person's PRican (vs. unPRican) attribute here. My understanding is that the presence or absence of this particular attribute matters not at all in the determination of voting rights. My inference drawn from the paragraph, which my use of the term "PR-centric POV" implied, is that the writer likely places more weight on the presence or absence of this attribute (makes it more "-centric") than it deserves in other cases as well, rather than only in regard to the question of voting rights. Perhaps the inference, and the implication following therefrom, was unjustified. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph moved here from ''Political status within the United States'' section 

message: The whole bottom portion of the first section, about "the political relationship with the U.S." is so obsessed with dates and names of agencies and organizations that it excludes any actual meaningful content. Such as:
* What did the Task Force conclude?
* What belief is it that the President is standing by?
* Why is the Task Force conclusion controversial to the PDP?
* How do the findings differ from the PDP's understanding?
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is being talked about? 

message: I have modified the Symbols/Emblems/whatnot section, eliminated the reference to "National" (or the alternative "State", "territorial", etc) and left the reference to "Official", when established by law, or "Unofficial", when established by tradition. Pax portoricensis! Pr4ever (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official and Unofficial Symbols 

message: This sentence seems to confuse the two meanings of the word "Commonwealth." Four US States (i.e. KY,PA,VA,MA) are called "Commonwealths" but this makes them different from "States" in name only. See Commonwealth (United States) for more clarification. I changed it to make it clear that Puerto Rico had less autonomy than regular US states. 
::"However, it also has less autonomy at the federal level than other American commonwealths, such as the Commonwealth of Virginia or the Commonwealth of Kentucky."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedShiftPA (talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth status 

message: Shouldn't the fact that all municipalities have a "plaza" that have a catholic church and an "alcaldía" be mentioned somewhere? Maybe only the churches can be mentioned in the religion section. Maybe you don't think it's relevant. It's kinda sad to see that the biggest part of the article is about politics. Being that politics is a big issue in PR it seems that its hard for editors to focus on other facts and descriptions. Just my opinion. ~RayLast «Talk!» 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but please note that not all towns have city halls/alcaldías in front of the town plaza.  Examples: Las Piedras, Gurabo, Yabucoa Pr4ever (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do all still have a catholic church that you know of? ~RayLast «Talk!» 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: San Juan also has its city hall and plaza relatively distant from the Cathedral. And, yes, there are Catholic churches in every municipality. --Agüeybaná 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plazas 

message: There is no source used in citing the oft-mentioned 85% that are Roman Catholics.
The 85% defies reality, while it might amount to the number of baptismal records, there are many protestant churches present that in many cases, outnumber the traditional Catholic churches.
The presence of protestantism predates the spanish-american war, in one town, circa 1877, a protestant immigrant began to teach the bible to a small group of locals and they became known as "los biblicos".
Protestant denominations from the US began their activities on the island as of 1898, each within their assigned areas.
These same groups, although still very visible, have been outnumbered by the many local denominations that reflect the local culture.
In 1984, in the largest protestant groups' (IDDP) biennial conference, some 400 churches were accounted for within the island. Breaking it down per municipality, it amounts to some 4 churches per municipality.66.231.160.142 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is the CIA Factbook . Joelito (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurate information on religious groups in Puerto Rico. 

message: This really no longer meets current GA requirements. The WP:LEAD alone is excessively long, plus much of the article is unsourced. Then I'm reading the history section about the 1950 uprising, then its time to go back several years to governance changes, then on to immigration, and then back to 1950 to an assassination attempt the day after the uprising begins. I'm guessing the revolt and assassination are related, and if not that needs to be spelled out, see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Make omissions explicit for other editors. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *sighs, head down* I must admit the article has gotten out of control, adding undue emphasis to post-1952 politics, including repeating issues and adding assertions where they don't tie into the flow of information. I'll review the article to make the changes. If you could give me a week before nominating at GAR, I'd appreciate it. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, take a couple weeks, its a big article. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: The last sentence of the opening paragraph is senseless and should be removed: "The Spanish of Puerto Rico is well known for some interesting linguistic features."  Interesting linguistic features as opposed to the Spanish of Spain, Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, or maybe Cuba?
The statement also begs the question, well known to whom? The fact that there is not a single reputable source that can be ascribed to that statement definitely argues for its deletion.
--128.103.235.128 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rephrased. ~RayLast «Talk!» 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Section Needs Edit 

message: Section "Transportation", 2nd paragraph.
"...and is a major hub in he Caribbean. The most recently renovated ..."
he = the
Rkinci (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. ~RayLast «Talk!» 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: Do you guys think that the fact that Puerto Rico forms part of one of the three point boundaries of the Bermuda Triangle should be mentioned somewhere in this article? Maybe in the Geography section? ~RayLast «Talk!» 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is basically trivia. Not worth mentioning, in my opinion, in the article. Joelito (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding a "See also" section with links to Puerto Rico's "Did you know?'s" which could list that and stuff about the Chupacabra and so on? Well, now that I think of it, there is a link to the Portal which already has something like this. I just think there are so many interesting things related to Puerto Rico and it's kind of hard to get to or find it if you don't already know about it and expressly look for it. ~RayLast «Talk!» 13:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a link to Did you know in the see also section. Joelito (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bermuda Triangle 

message: The economy section was comparing three very different entities and trying to draw a conclusion based on this comparison.  Apples to papayas: Per capita GDP is different from median household income - in three different ways:
#Per capita means "per person".  "Household" implies anywhere from 1 to ... use your imagination... many people.
#Per capita GDP divides total GDP by the number of people and thus implies an average (mean).  "Median" is a different concept.
#GDP is the total value of all goods and services produced by a state.  Income is how much money people have to spend (before taxes).
Apples to oranges: Per capita GDP vs. $14,412 from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund: Promoting Justice for Latinos.  I didn't find this in the source, and it seems a little low.  I think we would have heard about it if the growth rate of the economy had been greater than 11% for the past four years.  Maybe both numbers are wrong, though.
I tried to clean it up to compare GDPs, as I didn't find information on income for Puerto Rico. Ufwuct (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Apples to oranges to papayas