Jump to content

Talk:Afro–Puerto Ricans/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, there are a few things that the article could improve in. The statement "Campeche is the first known Puerto Rican artist and is considered by many as one of its best." This needs an inline citation to avoid POV. I went through the article and made multiple fixes concerning grammar and formatting, but I'd recommend having a few editors go through the article and work on some of the sentence structure and check on other grammar issues. The article would also improve with having more uniformally formatted inline citations. Consider using the templates at WP:CITET, which should have the websites include the author, publication date, article title, date last accessed, etc. Altogether the article still meets the criteria at this time, but it would benefit with some recent attention. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Mejías

was he Moorish or just black African?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.10.62 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • According to a source, Pedro Mejias was listed just as African, but I would assume that he may have been moorish. The problem to pin point his exact heritage comes about the lack of documentation of the time. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Racial stigma

This statement makes no sense.

In Puerto Rico there was no racial stigma of racial inferiority since slavery, on an individual basis, could be eliminated by a fixed purchasing price.

Slavery was a racially based institution in Puerto Rico set aside and plainly imposed on African oriented people. It would be an odd coiencidence that some hundreds of thousands of Pureto Ricans just so happened to be all slaves and black. Eliminating it after the fact does not have any bearing on this. The fact that there truly is no racial inferiority does not mitigate the fact that Puerto Rican "white" culture imposed a racial caste system on blacks thus pushing an inferior social classification upon them. --Whenhumor (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Abolition of Slavery

I am having trouble following the logic of the second paragraph. Again, it seems the writer is doing a form of damage control, to somehow neutralize the apparent historical facts by placing them in a context that seems to have a slanted perspective.

The writer explains that racism in Puerto Rico did not exist to the extent of other places in the New World, possibly because of the Moorish heritage of Spain, the forced infant baptisms of the Catholic Church, and the abandonment of the island by the whites for richer treasure in Mexico. And facinatingly enough, the Royal Decree of Graces of 1815 was cited as another possible example. This seems rather contrived and a very deliberate attempt to paint the forces responsible for the very brutality itself as part of the solution to end it. The Catholic church imposed slavery via Spanish decree, the abandonment by white males who likely left their black families behind does not sound like the example of a step forward. The fact that people had sex and children from sexual contact does not give credibility to this. Feedback please? --Whenhumor (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You must remember that the author of this well written article had to work within the policies established by Wikipedia which requires that content must be obtained from verifiable reliable sources and not from original research. Whatever the situation may have been in regard to slavery in other countries it does not mean that in Puerto Rico, where a large portion of the population is mulatto, it had to be the same. The article clearly states the hardships to which the slaves were subject to, however it also tells us that even tough racism is an evil that has been present since the beginning of time and especially in the United States, Puerto Ricans were among the first in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Shaggy Flores

Unfortunately, there is a Nuyorican poet by the name of Shaggy Flores who created his own article (autobiography) on Wikipedia and listed himself as Afro-Puerto Rican on this page. Shaggy Flores is not a black Puerto Rican. Flores, according to self-definition, is a scholar of the African diaspora. Persons who are not black Puerto Ricans should not inaccurately inscribe themselves this page, however quaint or liberating it may feel by doing so. --Noopinonada (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the article was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaggy Flores) and was keept, do you have evidence proving that it is indeed a autobiography? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing someone from this page because you disagree with how they define themselves is very disturbing. Actually, I think "Down These Mean Streets" addressed this exact sentiment. Marta Caminero-Santangelo's article "Puerto Rican negro": defining race in Piri Thomas's Down These Mean Streets discusses this topic:

"In a heated argument with his brother Jose, who insists on asserting his whiteness through physical features such as white skin, "almost blond" hair, blue eyes, a straight nose, and lips that "are not like a baboon's ass" (144), Piri insists on his own blood relation to his white-looking brother, and on the resulting conclusion that his brother, too, is black, no matter how "white" he looks on the "outside" (145). When Jose insists that Piri's darker skin comes from their father's "Indian" blood, Piri challenges, 

  What kinda Indian? Caribe? Or maybe Borinquen? Say, Jose, didn't 
  you know the Negro made the scene in Puerto Rico way back? And 
  when the Spanish spies ran outta Indian coolies, they brought them 
  big blacks from you know where. Poppa's got moyeto blood. I got it. 
  Sis got it. James got it. And, mah deah brudder, you-all got it! 
  (145)"

Race is a sociopolitical concept, it has no biological basis. There are plenty of people who classify themselves as "black" who may not fit your definition. Unless it is being done in a malicious or hateful manner, I see no valid reason to contest someone's sociopolitical perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.204.97.18 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and I suppose that because I have a Spaniard great-great-grandfather, I am white regardless if the rest of my ancestry is black? Why does the racist one-drop rule never apply in reverse? Race in the archaic sense of the word in the 19th century certainly has no basis in fact, but there are things called genes. We are all the same species, but we have great variety. To dumb this down, a cocker spaniel is not a chow chow, but they are both dogs. A chow chow who is 1/8 cocker is not a cocker. If there is no such thing as race, the existence of a black Puerto Rican web page should be questioned, since there are no blacks. We have words to describe differences because nature allowed differences. It is childish and deceptive to ignore the rest of your ancestry (the real majority of it) because it's "cool" or to gain acclaim with the subjects of the focus of your studies (African Diaspora). That is offensive. Shaggy Flores is not black. --Noopinonada (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article?

I'm sorry, but this is not a good article. It appears written at a children's level, it is simplistic and devoid of insightful analysis, and re-hashes the tired and discredited (even by the Encyclopedia Brittanica) "black legend" of the evil oppressive Spaniard. It brings up once again the old canard of "happy natives" in Puerto Rico making no distinction between black or white, and it attempts to imbue the totality of Puerto Rican culture only with African antecedents. It is wrong at so many levels one hardly knows where to begin, and so I won't; I'll leave total revision of this monstrousity of an excuse for an historical article to those with more time and patience than I have, but I will make an emphatic statement that if Wikipedia seeks to maintain some semblance of credibility as a reference resource, it is imperative that reader-editors correct this type of nonsense.Cd195 (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


  • Your comments are harsh, however everyone is entitled to their opinions. We do not pretend that our articles will be to the to satisfaction of everyone. Wikipedia policy does not permit original research nor what may be considered POV's. Wikipedia has a "disclaimer" and does not pretend to be considered a reliable source. However, Wikipedia policy requires that articles cite and provide reliable verifiable sources and this article has plenty of them, plus the article cites the findings of various renowned historians, such as Ricardo Alegria and Luis M. Diaz. The article was scrutinized by a panel before being promoted to "Good Article" status. If you feel that the article, in accordance to your harsh words is a "monstrousity of an excuse for an historical article, (It is spelled "monstrosity" not "monstrousity")" then please continue to use the "Encyclopedia Brittanica" as a reference, but do not insult the intelligence of those who have worked hard on this or any other project. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cd195, I totally agree with you. Not to mention that Puerto Rico article is also full of misinformation, and a strong effort to make Puerto Rico looks like an extension of Africa, and totally apart from USA. This people also contaminated Puerto Rican Cuisine article with all that crap. Really sad and shameful!!! Saludos,

--Portorricensis (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Portorricensis, please keep your political agendas to yourself and "stop" making false accusations and insulting the intelligence of others by stating "This people also contaminated Puerto Rican Cuisine article with all that "crap". You have done this in the other articles which you have mentioned and you are now trying to stir up a debate here. Where do you get the ridiculous assumption that there is "a strong effort to make Puerto Rico looks like an extension of Africa, and totally apart from USA."? Do you have something against the African contributions to Puerto Rican culture? The truth is not misinformation, however the insistence to add things the way you perceive them and not the way they are is misinformation. Now let me tell you, you can only wish that you could write an article of this caliber, but from I have seen so far you have not done so. But, I must admit there is one thing that you are good at and that is criticizing Wikipedia and those who have whole heartily contributed to the project, as you did here with this statement: "After all Wkipedia reputation "está en el piso" worldwide because of all these bias, and "disparates". In the bottom of this talk page you have criticized the cuisine section of this article yet, you have not been able to provide nor cite reliable verifiable sources to back up your claims. Why? because there are none. Regardless of what you think of this article, the community decided to score it as a "GA" and that is what counts my brother. I'm really sorry for you. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, a readability analysis of the article reveals that it is between Senior year high school to second year college in language (i.e age 16-20), depending on the scale. As to allegations of "afro-centrism", this article is precisely about the Black history of Puerto Rico, it is by definition "afro-centric", in the same way that, say, Jewish immigration to Puerto Rico needs to be judeo-centric. If the topic is Oranges, you don't bring up Apples. --Cerejota (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Article? II

Wikipedia can indeed be a good reference resource, and I appreciate the effort it takes to write an article with a truly neutral point of view. This can be difficult when addressing cultural history. Even acknowledged scholars such as Alegria and Diaz have their own agendas, and this has to be taken into account. I'm not entirely sure, in this context, what is meant by stating that a Wikipedia author should do no "original research." Does this mean that a prospective author should only read one source, and not "research" the issue by reading as widely as possible, including authors with differing points of view? In regard to this article I was merely stating that, in my opinion, it frankly overstates the influence of Black culture on Puerto Rico, it repeats old scurrilous stereotypes about the Spanish who came to the New World, and in general, it is written in a simplistic and unreflective manner, suggesting a work written for children and young adults. I don't know who reviewed it or found it suitable for "good article" designation, and I wouldn't go so far as to "insult their intelligence" (to use your words), but I would contend that the designation was ill-advised, and that a much better article can and should be written on this subject. BTW-sorry about the monstrous typo. I hope it didn't distract you too much.Cd195 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Cd195 thank you for writing. I understand your concerns since I have checked your other contributions. The main problem in Wikipedia is, that unlike other websites which have a strict registration policy and only allow those who have knowledge on a certain subject to edit, anyone can edit it. That is why the no "original research" allowed and only statements which can be backed up by verifiable reliable sources are permitted. That is why Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source and why points of view are not allowed. I know that the Spaniards have gotten a bad rap in regard to how they treated their slaves and the Tainos of the island, but the fact is that there was a lot of cruelty imposed and that is not a fact that cannot be denied. However, it is also a fact that there were those who kind to certain extent and that is covered.

African influence is strong in the island and that is why it is covered. However, I myself have covered in some of my other articles, the Corsican, French, Irish, German, and other influences of the people of the island. Yes, the article is written in a simplistic way, because it is our youth more then any other group who needs to be educated about the Puerto Rican experience and the contributions which the people of that island have made to the world. All in all, I only wish that some registration restrictions be made in Wikipedia so that we could develop a truly reliable encyclopedia. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, "black legend of the evil oppressive Spaniard", am I missing something here? Is this user suggesting that the slaves where "happy slaves" and that their relation with the Spanish was all "peaches and cream"? Why are we even listening to someone who is trying to push his own POV over that of actual historians? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

More on Good Article

Tony, thank you for the kind words and understanding concern about Wikipedia. You're so correct that the open nature of Wikipedia makes its reliability suspect, which is unfortunate. Used correctly it affords a wealth of information not so readily available anywhere else. I do wish that it could somehow be modified such that the content could be more protected. Interestingly, I did hear that a study comparing Wikipedia with Encyclopedia Brittanica showed far fewer errors of fact in Wikipedia. A remarkable finding!

As to the Puerto Rico article, of course it has much valuable information and uncontroversial historical data which makes it useful in any event. Spaniards did indeed treat the natives of the New World unkindly, my point is not that oppression did not occur, but that the Spaniards were no worse than any of the other European powers who came to the Western Hemisphere. As a descendant of Spaniards, of course I'm a little sensitive to that issue! In general, I must say, I applaud the Wikipedia editor's efforts to present Puerto Rican history and accomplishments to a wider world. Living in the US, I'm always surprised at how little stateside Americans know about Puerto Rico, which is after all, part of the US. Puerto Rican history is indeed rich with all the variety, interesting facts, and complexity of any other country, perhaps even more so than most small Latin American countries.98.170.199.152 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Venegas.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion

This article neglects Puertorican spiritism!!! Puertorican spiritism incorporated african elements from the Yoruba and Congo. Also santeria came to Puerto Rico before the 1950's. Remember Puerto Rico had very important relations with Cuba before the Spanish-American war and continued to have a strong relation until the US embargo was impossed(Puerto Rico y Cuba son de un pajaro las dos alas). Yes, the popularity of Santeria grew with the Cuban immigration in the 1950s, but remember most of the Cubans that came to Puerto Rico were high and middle class white Cubans. The belief in the Orishas has existed since the arrival of the Yorubas in Puerto Rico!!! The traditional Vejigante mask is made of a coconutshell and not paper! Any question talk with the Ayala family in Loiza. We must remember that religious practice of African decent in Puerto Rico remain a taboo, that the practioners of these religions were persecuted and remain secret. Santeros, espiritistas and paleros are not allowed to talk about their practices. Afroboricua (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Afroboricua

  • You are right! The religion section needs some additional work. The Puertorican spiritism has to be worked in and must be cited by reliable verifiable sources. I will check into it soon. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

_________________

There's a lot of misinformation in this article.

For example:

Salmorejo is totally a Spaniard (Andalusian) dish so, salmorejo de jueyes is a "Puerto Ricanization" of it. Also pasteles (like tamales) came from Amerindian (Taíno) influences. It is not African. Yuca is an Amerindian root, and Plantains are originally from Southeast Asia. There's nothing African in Puerto Rican pasteles. So tostones, arañitas, etc. are not African. African influence in Puerto Rican cuisine is minimal. Puerto Rican Cuisine is mainly based on pre Hispanic products, and Spaniard influence.

Also Pedro Albizu Campos (terrorist for many, heroe for some others) was mainly of Basque ancestry.

Cheers! --Portorricensis (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tony,

Is that a real reference? LOL You're funny, man...

Pasteles are not African at all. They are based on Amerindian cuisine. Some people dare to say that it came from Canaria, Spain, But NEVER from Africa. We don't need references for things that are well known. Salmorejo isn't African either.

Blacks slaves didn't bring any products... They ate whatever the Spaniards gave them. After almost 200 years, they got used to "criolla" (Taino & Spanish) cuisine. They were influenced by our "cocina criolla", not the opposite.

Also in a book called Albizu Campos Puerto Rican Revolutionary, by Federico Ribes Tovar. On page 17 it specifically refers to his parents and their ancestry. His father, Alejandro Albizu Romero, known as "El Vizcaíno”, was a Basque merchant living in Ponce. His mother, Julia Campos is described as being of Spanish, Indian (Taíno) and African descent. So Albizu wasn't really black, not even mulato. He was more "mestizo".

Cheers! --Portorricensis (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Si amigo, it is a real reference and I wasn't joking (smile). What I think that Nydia Rios de Colon is stating in the Smithsonian Folklife Cookbook is more about techniques more then anything else. See, even though the ingredients came from other regions, what she is that the African women came up with the idea of wrapping foods in plantain leaves. Remember, what you may believe that is common knowledge may not be so common knowledge for others and that is why references are required. What I want to hear from you, since you have this thing for cuisines, is what are the African contributions to our cuisine.

Maybe this would look better:

"According to Daisy Martinez in her book "Daisy Cooks: Latin Flavors That Will Rock Your World", she states that Coconuts, Coffee, okra, yams, sesame seeds, gandules (pigeon peas or Congo peas in English) sweet bananas, plantains, yams, malanga, etc. all come to Puerto Rico from Africa. If you took away the African elements you could not recognize the traditional cuisine of Puerto Rico. African cooks brought with them the preference for deep frying food which is still close to Puerto Rican hearts. Also the tradition of cooking complex stews and rice dishes in iron pots is thought to be originally African. According to Nydia Rios de Colon, a contributor to the Smithsonian Folklife Cookbook, wrapping foods in plantain leaves, such as the "Pasteles" is an art imported by African women".

  • In regard to Albizu, the fact that he has African blood, plus his features represent that more of a black person then a white person. Then we also take into consideration that the military classified him as a black and made him serve in an all black unit. We will leave it at that. Not that I was curious, but I went and asked my father-in-law, who was a nationalist and personally knew Albizu Campos and he said "Ese negrito era un gran hombre". So, let's stick to the cuisine issue. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Tony, I can't care less. LOL I'm not even worried any more about all that misinformation you guys have and keep within almost all Puerto Rican articles. After all Wkipedia reputation "está en el piso" worldwide because of all these bias, and "disparates". Un día de éstos vendrá una gran demanda universal y se acabará todo este relajo. LOL

The funniest thing of all is that all that misinformation is coming not from Puerto Ricans from the Island, but from 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation NeuyoRicans, LOL. They wan'na impose their perceptions and misconceptions about Puerto Rico and all Puerto Rican matters. Heheheh...

Once again: Coconuts are NOT from Africa. Plantains are NOT from Africa. Coffee is from Africa (from Ethiopia to be exact), BUT was brought by Spaniards. Yams, malanga, and Yuca are from the Americas, NOT from Africa. Actually yams are found originally from different continents, not only Africa. Okra is from Africa, but was brought to Puerto Rico by mainland USA Americans after 1898. So I don't care what an ignorant like Daisy or whoever may say, since they're cooks and NOT historians.

Since you seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia is "God's voice of truth", I'm bringing some quotes for your reading pleasure:

Africans got to know bananas, peppers, pineapples, and plantains because the Portuguese brought them...

"Several centuries later, the British and the Indians came, and both brought with them their foods, like Indian spiced vegetable curries, lentil soups, chapattis and a variety of pickles. Just before the British and the Indians, the Portuguese had introduced techniques of roasting and marinating, as also use of spices turning the bland diet into aromatic stewed dishes. Portuguese also brought from their Asian colonies fruits like the orange, lemon and lime. From their colonies in the New World, Portuguese also brought exotic items like chilies, peppers, maize, tomatoes, pineapple, bananas, and the domestic pig – now, all these are common elements of East African food." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_Africa

Just take a look at recipes from all African continent, and you'll find out that deep frying is NOT an African way of cooking. Deep frying is European and Chinese. Actually the use of oil for frying purposes was unknown to most Africans before Europeans got there. Not to mentions the use of pork lard was totally absent, since most African countries are muslims. Just take a look at European cuisine (German, British, Portuguese, Spaniard, etc.), and you'll learn that deep frying method belongs to them.

"Deep frying has a long history; evidence occurs in ancient cultures all over the world such as Rome, Egypt and China. Fritters had already existed in Europe since medieval times, and fried chicken was known in Europe as pollo fritto in Italy, Ga Xao in Vietnam, etc. before it became a culinary habit in the Southern United States. The Scots, and later Scottish immigrants to many southern states had a tradition of deep frying chicken in fat, unlike their English counterparts who baked or boiled chicken. There is also evidence of deep frying in West Africa. It is uncertain is if deep frying existed in that region before European contact." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_chicken

Wrapping foods in plantain leaves by Africans (especially from Wets Africa) was adopted from the Americas (tamales, pasteles, guanimes, etc.), and Europe (papadakis, dolmas, etc.) via European countries. That banana leave wrapped food is known as Fufú in that part of the African continent, and it is made out of corn and / or Yuca -cassava- (from the Americas), and plantain (from Southeast Asia, brought to Africa by the Europeans). In the case of Borikén, there were at least three and possibly more original “pasteles” - one made from mais (corn), called "guanime", one from yuka, and another from yautia.

Blacks came to Puerto Rico as slaves. They never brought ANYTHING with them. Also the tradition of cooking complex stews and rice dishes in iron pots is TOTALLY EUROPEAN!!!

"There are recipes for lamb stews & fish stews in the Roman cookery book Apicius, believed to date from the 4th century. Le Viandier, one of the oldest cookbooks in French, written by the French chef known as Taillevent (1310-1395, real name Guillaume Tirel) has ragouts or stews of various types in it. Hungarian Goulash dates back to the 9th century Magyar shepherds of the area, before the existence of Hungary. Paprika was added in the 18th century. The first written reference to 'Irish stew' is in Byron's 'Devil's Drive' (1814): "The Devil ... dined on ... a rebel or so in an Irish stew." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stew


Actually rice (brought from China by the European ) is NOT part of the everyday African diet, and beans are 100% from the AMERICAN CONTINENT!!! So what are you talking about?

Regarding Albizu, I don't care either about all those :"disparates", since to me he was not more than a "perro sato con sarna"... A terrorist! BUT, the tuth is that he was a "mestizo" (from Spaniard father), and not black. Actually US Armed Forces criteria is NOT universal on race matters. So las cosas son como son y NO como algunos tratan de hacerlas ver.

Take care, man, and have a great weekend!

Cheers! --Portorricensis (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you can't avoid the "politization" of every one of your posts, you certainly need to learn how to respect all political ideals. Anyway, just remember, one more edit war and you are out. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you "Propaganda HQ", I'm talking about FACTS. I see you guys can't stand that other people may not agree with all actual politization and propaganda made by you in every single article related to Puerto Rico. This is NOT a matter of respecting political ideals... Facts are facts. Articles like these should not be contaminated with political propaganda for the sake of respecting political "ideals" of a few (like yours, guys).

Just remember that I'll be back denouncing and correcting all misinformation on all your articles. I'm not a afraid of you threats!!! I know I'm not gon'na be out. You guys should know better than that. The war was started by you guys (actually three persons). Everytime someone tries to correct all the bias and misinformation backed by you guys, then the edit war starts.

So you guys should try to correct all misinformation from all those Puerto Rico related articles. Believe me, there'll be many new users addressing all that soon. Not just me, heheheh...

LOL You guys have two options: 1. Keep your anti American propaganda, trying to give the world the false impression about Puerto Rico or 2. Start correcting and removing all misinformation from all those articles (including this one). Keep in mind that these days people have access to real information and "infomatica", so it's easy to refute all that bias. Puerto Rico is American soil, is not a political nation, is not an African extension of land, black influence in Puerto Rican culture is minimal, Puerto Ricans are NOT Africans; Actually Puerto Ricans are 70% mestizos (white & taino), Puerto Rico is part of an archipielago (it's NOT an isolated archipielago by itself), etc, etc, etc. So you better remove all that misinformation ASAP, or just bear the consequences soon...

Cheers! --Portorricensis (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I remind you that Wikipedia policy is clear about disruptions, personal attacks and legal threats.
Wikipedia:Civility: "A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks."
Wikipedia:No legal threats. I think this is not the first time you have made a legal threat against Wikipedia. "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing." --J.Mundo (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
That is certainly a hilarious comment coming from an ultra-anexionist that just posted this: "he was not more than a "perro sato con sarna"... A terrorist!". I, unlike you, have worked and improved articles related to all topics, including nationalists (Lolita Lebrón), autonomists Luis Muñoz Marín) and anexionists (Isolina Ferré). So much for your "Anti american" hipotesis, altough its lovely to see how you keep pushing your luck by posting personal attacks. An additional fun fact, the only time time that I was "reported" to WP:ANI, was for reverting a nice piece of Anti-Americanism to the Run Lola Run article, which was followed by several "Yankee" related insults by a Russian user. So you see, I have been called both sides, the truth is that I'm neither. By the way, I'm taking the "consequences" as just an failed attempt at intimidation, otherwise it would be a legal threat and you would be blocked. However, keep in mind that I'm done granting chances. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afro–Puerto_Ricans/Archive_2&oldid=1242177064"