Talk:Alejandro García Padilla/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lead section

The second paragraph of the lead section needs to be rewritten. The section should summarize the main points of the article. The problem with highly POV material is that the citations are links to primary sources including a footnote about constitutional amendments, which I find highly out of place for a biography. I suppose this material can be inserted in the body of the text with proper sourcing. What the section is trying to imply? That the legislature is a rubber stamp for Alejandro Padilla? I suppose is a valid point to make but it needs a reliable source not just a citation to the constitution. In other word, what evidence you have that this is actually happening and is being directly covered by the media? --Jmundo (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a POV material. Once again, this is a FACT. It has even been referenced. The section is not trying to imply anything; they are facts, period. Here, let me explain it to you: Senate has 18 PPD, 8 PNP, 1 PIP. Majority is overwhelmingly PPD. House has 28 PPD and 23 PNP. Majority is PPD. To enact, amend, or repeal a law you need: pass on the Senate, pass on the House, pass by the Governor. We call this democratic republic. The governor is not a tyrant. We must state which sessions of the Senate and the House are in place while he governs, and what this implies. In 2005 this didn't happen. Anibal Acevedo Vilá was from the PPD, the Senate was PPD controlled, but the House was PNP controlled. This is known as "shared government" and has historically lead to lock downs. Similarly to what is happening to Obama and the House at the federal level. This is not the case for Alejandro, and it is of utmost importance that we mention it from an NPOV just as we are. We are not making an opinion. We are just saying, "the PPD controls the legislature and the executive branch, this means that THE GOVERNOR, who is the only person that can sign a bill into a law, can pass laws emblematic to the party without opposition." This is extremely important and is something currently being discussed about California (see [1]). So, yeah, having the legislative branch and executive branch controlled by your party has a critical effect on the territory. This is the reason why Alejandro has been able to enact reforms and increase taxes, which ultimately has an effect on the economy and its people. Politics 101. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss politics 101 (BTW its a very simplistic way of how government works). I'm questioning why this belong on the lead section. You don't address the problem that the lead in the article is not following the guideline. From WP:LEAD: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources". You say is "extremely important" to understanding of Garcia Padilla, then provide a citation not just a link to the constitution. My understanding is that he had a hard time with the legislature trying to approved various reforms . My request is a simple one, please provide a link to news coverage so we can establish the importance of this matter.--Jmundo (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The statement "As governor, García Padilla shares his legislative powers with the 25th Senate and 29th House of Representatives; both controlled by his party." is referenced through the Puerto Rico State Commission on Elections; the ONLY entity in the whole world that is considered a reliable source on Puerto Rican elections. Why are you reverting this sentence? The second statement, "This effectively allows García Padilla to enact, amend, and repeal laws that are emblematic to his party without political opposition save for constitutional amendments." is referenced by Section 19 of Article III of the Constitution which states CLEARLY: "Every bill which is approved by a majority of the total number of members of which each house is composed shall be submitted to the Governor and shall become law if he signs it [...]" The PPD controls the "majority of the total number of members of which each house is composed" as well as controlling the seat of the Governor. This effectively means that the Governor can sign bills which are EMBLEMATIC to his party. Do you know the difference between a bill that is EMBLEMATIC to the party and one that is not? Emblematic bills are bills which were conceived BEFORE winning the election through the party's platform (linked for your convenience). So, this means, that the party can enact, amend, or repeal laws that are EMBLEMATIC to the party and which were captured explicitly on their platform. There is a HUGE difference between an EMBLEMATIC bill and other bills. It seems you are interpreting this the wrong way by believing that just because the PPD controls everything they can do whatever they want. This is not what is being expressed in those statements. The statements mentions bills which are EMBLEMATIC and EMBLEMATIC only. The Governor does NOT control the whole apparatus, nor does the party. The party, however, can easily approve a bill which is emblematic to their platform. The other reference not only explains why they don't control constitutional amendments, IT ALSO REFERENCES THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, specifically Section 1, Article VII which states: " The Legislative Assembly may propose amendments to this Constitution by a concurrent resolution approved by not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of which each house is composed." The PPD does NOT control two-thirds of the House and this is clearly explained in the footnote. It is also REFERENCED through the Constitution. Wikipedia does not work by relying on news coverage and news coverage alone. We can link encyclopedias, books, novels, essays, statistics, OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS, and so on. Please cease reverting this information as it is (1) REFERENCED and (2) WP:VERIFIABLE. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you have not provided a single secondary source tells me that we have a problem with original research. You seem to have a problem with WP:OWNING and I'm not going to waste my time here. It should be an easy request, someone is challenging your assertion, then provide a reference. Why I have to take your word for granted? The statement that Garcia Padialla doesn't have a political opposition needs a source not just you pointing to primary documents and the constitution. I'm not asking for an explanation about the political process, btw doens't belong here, I'm challenging the statement and asking for sources not just your analysis of election results. --Jmundo (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you have really failed to understand. The statement does not say he doesn't have political opposition, it says he doesn't have political opposition FOR BILLS EMBLEMATIC TO HIS PARTY. I have already stated this in the discussion above and on the statement itself by using the word 'emblematic' but you still have failed to notice this. You don't need to take "my word" because once again, these are FACTS. Period. If you don't want to accept them then the issue at hand here are not the statements but your unwillingness to understand the political process and the meaning of the word 'emblematic'. Sources have been provided. The Constitution itself has been cited. So have been the election results from the only agency in the whole world that can provide such data. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of public image and perception section

We have a user, User:Jbabylon91, which keeps removing the section "public image and perception" which has important figures and prose related to the job growth and economic index under García Padilla's government. This is quite typical for any head of government and you can see other biographies that contain a similar (if not the very same) section. I have no idea why this user is removing this information except because, according to him, "it wasn't constructive" -- whatever that may mean. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Section looks negatively biased to me. Only covers a few months. Does not show how other economies in the region are doing, or the world economy. Suggest you expand the dataset, to show how PR is doing compared to other countries that are demographically similar (or the region on average), plus compared to the worldwide economy, and maybe compared to the same datasets of the past two governors. I mean, hypothetically, if the worldwide economy dropped by half, and PR only lost 5%, then this governor is doing awesome work, right? So, keep the absolute graphs (are they adjusted for inflation btw?) but also show the comparative-slash-relative graphs of how well the economy of PR is doing (better/worse) compared to other economies, and give some historical info about better/worse trends in the past. Nice seeing you, HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah the quantity of the months is because the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank has a lag when publishing info. If you give me the data from the other data sets I can create the graph that you suggest. We can compare it to Hawaii, Connecticut, other Caribbean islands, and other Hispanic American countries. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The charts without context don't belong here. The section should be expanded by using reliable secondary sources (news articles) instead of economic reports. --Jmundo (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh? So you are saying the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank is not a reliable source? You are aware that we use statistics from government agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics as well? You are aware this is more than fine right? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Already an IP has indicated that data sets are misleading. First, we just don't add images/charts in the articles without text. Second, I'm not questioning the reliability of the government agencies, but Wikipedia articles should be reference to secondary sources instead of primary sources. You are making an editorial statement cleverly inserted in the captions. Remember this in a BLP article and extra care should be given to sourcing.--Jmundo (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The charts present facts. Wether you want to consider them POV, "editorial statement", or "misleading" is a personal interpretation. The truth is the truth. Every single article that you will find about Puerto Rico statistics will come from statistics published by the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank. Please, cease accusing me of presenting a POV or an "editorial statement" simply because the data is negative. It is what it is. It might go up in the future, or down, who the hell knows, but Wikipedia presents facts and this is a fact you cannot rebuke. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The charts made by you present are very narrow view of the economy . My request is based on the RS guideline "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Please provide reliable sources where your specific charts are being discussed. --Jmundo (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Puerto Rico Government Development Bank and the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources are the ONLY reliable sources in the whole world to publish statistics about Puerto Rico's economic activity and labor statistics. Every other article or statistics is based on THEIR publications. They are the primary and only source for this. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Can you point to the exact location of your source for the chart. Here [2] the data goes back to 2009 and it gives a more complete panoramic view of the economic activity. --Jmundo (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

[3] & [4]. Anything else? Please stop reverting the information. These are facts. Our opinion is irrelevant. Facts are facts. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As the IP point out at the beginning of the discussion, you are only showing the first month of the year of his administration in a sensationalized way without providing a panoramic view of the economic cycle in Puerto Rico. I don't understand why when the source you provide goes back to 2005. And yes, you are stating an opinion in the caption and it should be removed unless you can find a direct source not just your interpretation of the data. --Jmundo (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the chart doesn't show "the first month of the year", it shows the whole time the Governor has been in power. García Padilla was sworn in on January 2, 2013. The chart covers that months and all other months that have followed since he has been in power. This is not "sensationalized"; these are FACTS presented by the only institutions in the whole world authorized to publish such stats: the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank and the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources. If the stats were positive they would be up as well. You are just having this discussion because they are negative. They can change. They most probably will. His administration in working on that. But facts up til today are facts. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the dispute board showing no consensus for the addition of the charts: [[5]]. Jmundo (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've just fully protected this article due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the matter here on the talk page instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we include graphs about Puerto Rico's economic behavior under the Governor's tenure?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Puerto Rico's cumulative Economic Activity Index under García Padilla's tenure.

Puerto Rico's cumulative payroll employment (seasonally adjusted) under García Padilla's tenure.

We are having a hard time coming to a consensus about wether or not we should present graphs about Puerto Rico's economic behavior under García Padilla's tenure. This is common on Wikipedia and is currently done for other heads of government such as:

• Barack Obama, where a graph shows the unemployment rate under Obama's tenure, and
• George W. Bush, where a graph shows the deficit under Bush's tenure.

The graphs that were included on this article were created from data published by two reliable sources: the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank and the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources—the only two sources in the whole world that publish such data. This can be obtained from:

• [6] (sheet T01, first table, fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, months from January to August--tenure of García Padilla as he was sworn in on January 2, 2013) and from
• [7] (sheet T22, first table, fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, months from January to August--tenure of García Padilla as he was sworn in on January 2, 2013).

Both entities have a backlog of about three months (right now they only show the data until August: [8]).

The graphs were created from the following data:

Month	EIA	Deviation (cumulative; when compared to base)
December (previous governor; serves as base of comparison)	131.4	0
January	129.9	-1.14%
February	128.5	-2.21%
March	127.4	-3.04%
April	127.1	-3.27%
May	126.6	-3.65%
June	125.5	-4.49%
July	124.2	-5.48%
August	123.8	-5.78%

I'm not making this up. The data is available at http://www.gdb-pur.com/economy/documents/15.EAI-2013-10-01.xls

Regarding jobs, we have the following:

Month	Payroll (seasonally adjusted)	Deviation (cumulative; when compared to base)
December (previous governor; serves as base of comparison)	929.3	0
January	921.3	-8,000
February	920.4	-8,900
March	915.8	-13,500
April	914.7	-14,600
May	906.7	-22,600
June	895.7	-33,600
July	890.8	-38,500
August	897.1	-32,200 (recovery; jobs are being added)

Once again, I'm not making this up. The data is available at: http://www.gdb-pur.com/economy/documents/01.LABOR-2013-10-01.xls

A similar process was done for Barack Obama with an archived discussion available at Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 77.

The question is: should we show these graphs on this article?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. As has already been made clear at WP:DRN [9], this material contains original research and synthesis, and inclusion is thus contrary to Wikipedia. Accordingly, this RfC is pointless - one cannot come to a local agreement to contravene policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not original research nor synthesis. We obviously disagree on this and that is why I have opened this RFC to have community wide input on this matter as we already do this very same thing on many other articles, including Barack Obama (see graph) and George W. Bush (see graph). This is done by following the process set forth by WP:DRR which suggests a third opinion (done), an informal noticeboard (done), an RFC, and formal mediation should the parties still disagree. As you have already been told, per WP:IAR and WP:PILLARS, Wikipedia does not have firm rules and its policies and guidelines are not carved stone. Furthermore, our policies and guidelines are interpretative. You are interpreting them in a way and I'm interpreting them in another. This is why this RFC has been opened. Let the community as a whole give its input rather than a few editors that visit WP:DRN and a random Talk page. The RFC notifies all of the community. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• The graphs should not be included. They are based on primary sources, which on a BLP should be treated "with extreme caution". You cannot just include without any reliable secondary sources providing context on what that says about Garcia Padilla. That is OR and synthesis. And if the graphs are not supposed to be implying that Garcia Padilla is at least partly at fault for the economic situation, then it's hard to see how they are directly relevant to the article. Neljack (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The graphs are built from the ONLY reliable source in the whole world that can publish such statistics. Similarly to how the graph about the economy under Obama's tenure was created based on statistics published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These are NOT original research nor synthesis. The graphs show facts. What it says about García Padilla is IRRELEVANT. Facts are facts, PERIOD. You wanna see how the graphs are relevant? Here, let me show you: Act 1 of 2013, his very first act of his tenure, called the Jobs Now Act, an act to create jobs which justifies the graph about payroll employment. He also signed Act 40 of 2013 which raised taxes and implemented new ones. Here are other reliable sources that link the Governor to the economy of the island: [10] [11] [12] And here's how the Economic Activity Index is computed: [13] Wanna know why the EAI is related to the Governor? Because one of its four metrics takes into consideration power generation. Power generation in Puerto Rico is managed by a government monopoly which is controlled by a Board appointed by the Governor. So, he signs laws to mingle with job creation, raises taxes, and appoints the people that control power generation. How is the Governor NOT related to the economy? This is the first time in my life that I have to explain this to someone. I'm still pondering why is it OK to do this with Obama but there is an issue doing it with García Padilla. Facts are facts bro. It is not our job to hide some and show others. We must remain neutral. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of these graphs. Came here via RFC, so uninvolved. The graphs are problematic for reasons of OR and Synthesis as highlighted by others here and at DRN. I have no problem with the inclusion of graphs in general, but these don't pass the threshold of being supported by secondary sources and analysis for inclusion. In addition, I do agree with Andy that there appears to be a consensus from DRN which must be part of the final conclusion on this issue. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I wandered by and noticed the discussion. The comparison to Obama and Bush doesn't provide justification, as they were/are heads of state, whereas Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the U.S.A., thus the leader is a governor. As for the legitimacy of the data, if the source is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as Ahnoneemoos said, then the data is NPOV and in fact, one of the only sources that is credible for employment data. Another might be ADP monthly payroll data. ADP is used in the continental U.S. as a payroll services provider for jobs outside the public sector, and releases monthly information that news and wire services, economists, researchers analyze and summarize. While it is relevant information for the economy of Puerto Rico, I am uncertain about including it in the BLP of the current governor, especially since many economic indicators are lagged by 3 months or longer, and I don't know how long the current governor has been in office. The situation regarding municipal bonds in PR is very important and encyclopedic content. Again, I don't know why it would be included in the governor's BLP unless he has directly um affected the triple tax free exempt status related to PR and U.S. public finance issues, AND there are NPOV sources that can confirm. --FeralOink (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The significant point is that the Obama and Bush articles provide multiple secondary sources which explicitly discuss the state of the U.S. economy, and the influence that the President will have had. With such sources already discussing the data, presenting it to readers is justifiable. This proposed edit cites no secondary sources which suggest that the data is relevant, or give it any context whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The following sources, as they have already been provided to you before, prove, without any reasonable doubt, that the Governor has an influence on the economy: [14] [15] [16] [17] Furthermore, the Governor himself has (1) signed a law about job creation [18] and (2) a law that expanded taxes [19]. You have been told about this several times already both in this discussion and at DRN. The Obama article does NOT present secondary sources, it only references the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the following two references: [20] & [21] Puerto Rico has its own "local" Bureau, in this case, the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources which publishes data about employment, and the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank, which publishes data about economic data.

The following bonds have been issued under García Padilla's tenure:

• Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority - $673,145,000, Power Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, August 15, 2013 (while García Padilla was in power) [22]

He also increased the government budget by $783 million: [23]

So, why exactly should these images not be shown when (1) the Governor himself has signed laws to increase jobs and these graphs present such data and (2) the Governor himself is highly related to the economy of Puerto Rico and these graphs show exactly how the economy has behaved under his tenure? These graphs are VERIFIABLE and backed up by RELIABLE SOURCES. Why again should they NOT be used?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if the issue is the trend line, we can present the data "as is" (just show the data without trendline and without calculations) even though the Obama article does this. I have updated the graphs to reflect this: they only show the data "as is" right now. No trendlines; no calculations. A verbatim copy of the data published by the Puerto Rico Government Development bank. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• among other problems, the graphs are prepared in such a way as to be biased because they do not start from zero. Any small decline or improvement can be greatly accentuated by this improper choice of the y axis. This is one of the most basic sins of graphics presentation. (The two graphs referred to as comparisons do not have this problem, at least not to the same extent: the Bush one properly starts at zero, the Obama one indicate the break in the axis-- though even doing it this way exaggerates the effect. One of the reasons we have the rule about WP:OR is to discourage this sort of data manipulation. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Brother, this is done automatically by Apple Numbers. If you tell me how I can make it so that it starts at zero I will--I just put the data and insert the graph. Be careful with your wording, especially if you are unaware of how the software makes the graphs by default. We can use other free software available online or you can update the graph yourself since you were provided with the data on this very same page. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OK I figured out how to do it and updated the graphs accordingly. The y-axis starts at zero now. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• (Invited by the RFC bot) My overall opinion is to leave them out. This is based on several factors on either "side" of the question. On the "plus" side, I do not consider the graphs themselves to be wp:or / or wp:synth. But juxtaposing them with an individual is; it implies cause/effect. Next, it is from primary sources, and (long story short) the reasons for strictly limiting uses of primary sources are relevant here and IMO the editor-selection of the material and juxtaposition of the editor-selected material with the individual violates those rules. Finally I tend to use a higher standard of relevancy when material is disputed. That standard is "is the material directly about the subject of the article"?. And this material fails that test. (Other than possibly falling under wp:undue, that last criteria is just my opinion, not policy.) North8000 (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We have a guideline for that, called WP:PERTINENCE. Long story short, the guys at the Obama article had this very same discussion several months ago. The conclusion, per Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 77 was:

Per WP:PERTINENCE, we only include data for the period of time pertinent to this article's subject. If readers want context, that can easily click through the caption wikilinks to read further about unemployment rate or labor force participation rate.

I find it quite shocking that we are having the very same discussion all over again, specially when we have proven, without any reasonable doubt and through reliable sources, that the Governor has a significant impact on the economy and employment. This is the first time in my life that I have to defend such stance.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I was invited randomly by RFC bot to participate here. First, this RFC is invalid because it does not follow RFC guidelines. A good RFC should simply state the question without any editorializing or explanation for one side of a question or the other. The amount of POV in this RFC makes any consensus impossible. We should just stop there, but from what I can see in the sources for this data most if not all of the proposed content is synthesized from primary sources and should not be included. (I can't even find mention of the terms "Payroll Employment", "Economic Activity" or "Deviation" in the GDB spreadsheets.) So in my opinion, even if we restarted the RFC with a proper neutral question, the result would be to reject this content. Jojalozzo 04:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, the source for this data was specified in the introduction of this RFC. This is pretty much why you always have an explanatory in RFCs like this one. For your convenience:

• [24] (sheet T01, first table, fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, months from January to August--tenure of García Padilla as he was sworn in on January 2, 2013) and from
• [25] (sheet T22, first table, fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, months from January to August--tenure of García Padilla as he was sworn in on January 2, 2013).

Hope this helps.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out here multiple times, using raw data like that is pure OR and SYN. In addition, you are ignoring the problems with the RFC. I strongly suggest you stop now before your not hearing becomes tenditious. Jojalozzo 22:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out several times here, on DRN, on other discussions, on other articles, and on other graphs which have been referenced in this discussion multiple times, the preparation of these graphs is NOT original research nor it is synthesis. Second, there is not a single problem with this RFC. And finally, please cease accusing people directly and instead focus on the arguments being presented in the discussion. I, too, can easily accuse you of WP:IDHT and WP:TEND if I wanted to. Did you know that the data was updated two days ago and this new data shows a POSITIVE tendency in the last month? Are we NOT going to show that too? As has been explained multiple times before, we don't care wether this data is positive or negative. We show it how it is per WP:NPOV. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No. You haven't 'pointed out' that the graphs aren't original research or synthesis. You have merely asserted that they aren't in the face of multiple experienced contributors stating the contrary, and explaining why. Eventually you are going to have to accept that your interpretation of policy is wrong. And no, it doesn't matter what the data shows - without a source that directly discusses both the data and the Governor, and draws a linkage between the two, they don't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Here you go brother: from Sin Comillas: [26]

Alejandro García Padilla Governor announced that his government has managed to create 25,256 jobs and has signed additional commitments that says, "I stand steadily on track to achieve 50,000 jobs in 18 months." To support the information made ​​following 14-page document 50mil Jobs Report.

The information contrasts with official data showing that 22,000 net jobs lost in the last 12 months.

In this case, when the government says it has created 25,256 jobs, say forget that in that same period, must have lost about 47,000 jobs. All months are created and jobs are lost. The important thing is to know what is more, those created or those who are perishing?

and [27] which has this graph: [28]

Well, believe . In Sin Comillas believe , we believe that the data presented in the makeshift conference ( if it was impromptu who attended? ) By Jorge Colberg are true . We believe that since this government came to have created jobs , and we believe that what they were say 28,000 jobs. But to say that and not talk about net jobs, unemployment , participation rate is only telling half the movie. Say it is not lying , but at least it's not the whole truth .

Data from the Department of Labor and Human Resources say that between July 2012 and July this year has lost 23,000 jobs, according to the Survey of Housing Agency , one of the two that are made to measure employment. The other survey, the sample of establishments in the last 12 months have lost 34,000 jobs.

If, as the government says have created 28,000 jobs, should have lost 51,000 jobs, for a net loss of 23,000 jobs is saying Housing Survey . You can do the same exercise with data from the Survey of institutions, but not go into that .

Let us calculate differently. What do the surveys say the last seven months ? In January 2013, 3,000 jobs were lost over the month of December; fell in February 1000 , 2,0 o0 more in March, 3,000 in April, 4,000 in May and 3,000 in June. In July , employment increased by 2,000. Which means that in the first seven months of net employment has fallen by 14,000. If the government claims to have created 28,000 jobs that means they must have lost about 42,000 in total.

You can also use [29] [30] [31]

Anything else?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

From El Nuevo Día, the governor attributing to himself and his administration employment growth [32]:

At a time when the people gives low marks for their performance in the first 10 months at the helm of the country, according to a poll published by El Nuevo Día, Governor Alejandro García Padilla announced yesterday that his administration has created 25,256 jobs.

"I have given body and soul to lift this town," said García Padilla surrounded by young people in a press conference as part of the job fair government "Employee Satisfaction" held at the Convention Center in Miramar.

"These (young) accompanying me are part of those 25,000," said the chief executive, who took the opportunity to take stock of what he thinks are his achievements.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

For the Economic Activity Index you can use [33] [34] [35] [36] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for using the charts in question, but I'd support your use of reliable news stories to support statements about employment and economic activity. This RFC is seriously flawed and should not be pursued, but there are other ways to get economic information into the article if you regroup. Jojalozzo 00:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Here are two other examples where economic graphs are used on heads of government: Vladimir Putin and Boris Yeltsin use the following graph: File:Russian economy since fall of Soviet Union.PNG which was created from raw data published by the IMF. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFF does not further your cause. Jojalozzo 00:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's the tail wagging the dog here. Which sections of this article are these graphs supposed to clarify? I don't see them. If there are independent reliable sources discussing the employment under Padilla, then we should have sections about them. If we can use charts from the data in those sources, or the data those sources point to, to further clarify the sections, then we probably should. But these are just graphs without context, which seem to want to lead the reader to some conclusion. That's not good use of charts. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a section called "Domestic policies" under which these two graphs were placed at. If you mean the prose, I can easily write that since we now have a reference for these graphs (without deviation; just presenting stuff "as is") from several articles published today by El Nuevo Día, Univision, and EFE; see [37] [38] [39] Notice there are references now because the economy is going up so the government's public relations team is making official statements about it in several media celebrating this feat. This is why we must ALWAYS post this information. So that our readers can see the whole picture, not only the part where things are OK. Like I said in all my arguments: this stuff can go up or down at any time, we don't care about that, we just present facts. When this RFC started they were negative, today these facts are positive. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Specifying US in birthplace field by Jbabylon91 / WikiSoldier86

I have reverted the persistent edits HERE and HERE by mobile user User:Jbabylon91 for consistence's sake. There are hundreds, perhaps 1000s, of similar biographical articles and it is not customary to add the "US" suffix. Mercy11 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• He is a Governor of a US Commonwealth. It is indispensable that people know the accurate information. Puerto Rico has been a US Commonwealth since 1952 in case you didn't know. The US suffix is important. I will put it back in no matter how many times you take it out, people need the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbabylon91 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Puerto Rico is a U.S. Commowealth since 1952 and a U.S. Territory since 1898. Puerto Rico is not a country (Federal Republic), it does not has a President nor it is a country member of the United Nations. There is a user called Mercy11 (Mercy11) who keeps taking out the "U.S." Suffix from the Governors birthplace. It is indispensable that the people get the correct information and know why they are Governors and not "Presidents". The U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico only has a Governor and a Statewide Government. Since 1917 Every person born in Puerto Rico is a Natural U.S. Citizen, which is why it is indispensable that the "U.S." Suffix appear at the birthplace of the Governors of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (WikiSoldier86 (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)).

Yes, they were removed not only by Mercy11 but by other editors (like User:Gobierno.pr (HERE) as well. And we have stated the reasons. If you want to make such change, you need to follow policy. Policy is at WP:CONSENSUS. Mercy11 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits with similar rationale started just two weeks ago by an anonymous IP HERE. The anonymous IP user resurfaced as noted HERE and was blocked HERE for edit warring. Mercy11 (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The reasons why the "U.S." part should not be present include:

1. Puerto Rico is not part of the US - it only belongs to the US.
2. The field is not a political field but a geographical location
3. The practice in Wikipedia is to leave the "US" out when the birth occurred in Puerto Rico
4. The change would create inconsistency since all articles state "Puerto Rico" only and not "Puerto Rico, US" as you are proposing.
5. The practice throughput much of the world is to leave the US out also. This can be seen in most maps and various other documents, including documents from the United Nations.

In addition, "people will [in fact] get the correct information and know why they are Governors and not 'Presidents' " because the Puerto Rico article tells them all of that. Also, you are yourself being inconsistent since THIS edit for Monica Puig is not the bio of a Puerto Rico governor.

Mercy11 (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see also THIS LINK where this same issue was addressed about 2 weeks ago. Mercy11 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Leave it out I don't see any person born in a UK territory with xxx, UK. We want the location of said nation, not a political tagging on as it confuses people to believe that for example Puero Rico is in the country rather than a separate Island. 80.43.244.245 (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been involved with recurrent disputes with Mercy11 about nationality, and all sorts of biases in the case of Oscar Lopez Rivera. We offered him mediation on the article and he and others declined. I have to tell you this issue is one of utmost ridiculousness. In the case of OLR, he insisted that OLR had Puerto Rican Nationality and not US citizenship. That was a convenient claim made by OLR and other FALN members when arrested, and then to claim they were prisoners of war, even though they had been living as citizens for decades in the mainland United States. It was a claim I could not allow because to accept it as fact gave validation, which was not afforded by any court, to the claim of these convicted criminals. But now, Mercy11 has decided that no Puerto Rican was born in the United States, despite the fact that all of them have US citizenship from birth. But why don't I try the avenue that is most feared by Mercy11, that is to argue against his facts:

The reasons why the "U.S.A." should be present include:

1. Puerto Rico is part of the US. It is a US territory or commonwealth, however you wish to define it.
2. Puerto Rico politically and legally is part of the US.
3. There is no practice in Wikipedia is to leave out USA when the birth occurred in Puerto Rico. That is his notion.
4. The consistent application would be to put the country last, and treat PR as one would treat all territories and states that are part of the US.

Again I urge this be reverted in this article and every article regarding someone from PR. This is not the place for Mercy11 to make his biased political arguments. I am more than willing to take this issue to arbitration.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalized again

Well, this article has been vandalized again. Jorge Canellas is the president of the PR chamber of Commerce. His name has been substituted for Garcia Padilla's.

Bamadawg----F. L. (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2015

Please change "As Secretary, he managed to keep gasoline prices lower than in any other area of the United States." To As Secretary, he managed to keep gasoline prices lower than in any other area of the United States." because the link used to support the claim directs to an unrelated source with no information.

References

74.117.16.6 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. I will look to see if I can find a reliable source for this statement. Hammersbach (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Undone: This request has been undone. I have instead removed the sentence, which is a controversial claim which was never properly sourced. Please find a reliable, independent source before adding it back. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really "Undone" so much as continuing the above process to ensure reliable info is on the Mighty Wik, eh? Hammersbach (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I did a bit of looking around for sources for this, and what I've found is a lot of sites reusing a line that seems written by a PR firm: "His work kept gas prices in check during critical periods of the Iraq War, with the Commonwealth having the lowest prices of any U.S. jurisdiction ...." I have not been able to find any independent source which confirms that he is responsible for keeping fuel prices low which doesn't repeat this sentence. In fact, I haven't even been able to find a source confirming that Puerto Rico's fuel prices were lower than the mainland U.S. during any particular time. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)