Talk:History of women in Puerto Rico

Contents

I am making the article content reflect its title. Perhaps we should then end up with a substancial section on stateside Puerto Rican women,,, since they would not be Women "IN" Puerto Rico per se, yet they too are considered Puerto Rican women. Mercy11 (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In my humble opinion the proper title of this article should be "Women of Puerto Rico". "In" could be understood as women from anywhere in Puerto Rico. One important factor is that there are many women of Puerto Rican heritage, such as Nydia Caro, who were born outside of Puerto Rico, who made their mark in Puerto Rico. There are also many women who were born in Puerto Rico who made their mark outside of Puerto Rico. Would anyone object if we changed the title to "Women of Puerto Rico"? Let's wait to hear what others may have to say. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think both titles have the advantages and disadvantages. I don't have any strong preference either way and will be OK with either. You raise a good point, a title change could allow more flexibility for incorporating women in the Diaspora. On the other hand, it could tilt the balance in favor of the Disapora considerably: a quick look at the list of prominent women shows that Stateside PR women have become more successful (and thus more prominent) as well as gotten a greater share of the 2 lists. The "tilting" is not entirely due to the fact that in the last couple of years for the first time there are more Puerto Ricans living in the US than in the Island. It is just a fact of life that it is next to impossible for PR women in a number of fields to excel in their fields (military, spac/NASA, cinema/Hollywood, for example) unless they leave the Island, become stateside residents and become part of the diaspora. Not against one of the other yet, just providing some "food for thought". Mercy11 (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Tony, I guess no one else cares. Let's go ahead and move the article to "Women of Puerto Rico". What do you think? Should we wait longer? Mercy11 (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's give it at least five more days. I think that in the future we could do one on the Puerto Rican woman in the states and limit it only to those Puerto Rican woman who moved there and the ones that have at least one Puerto Rican parent (grandparents and distant family members do not count). I base this on the fact that in 2007, the Puerto Rico State Department developed a protocol to grant Puerto Rican citizenship certificates to Puerto Ricans and that certificates of Puerto Rican citizenship are issued to any persons born on the island as well as to those born outside of the island that have at least one parent who was born on the island (Spanish) Citizenship application. Puerto Rico Department of State. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tony, that link started working when Acevedo Vila (PPD) was governor in 2007, but then stopped working sometime after Fortuño (PNP) took office in 2009. It is still not working. I am hoping it will be rescued back up again by this new García Padilla administration (took office January this year), since they are PPD again. I have also seen that political dance in Ponce with the Museo del Autonomismo Puertorriqueño: every municipal PPD administration opens it and every municipal PNP administration closes it. Under the current Maria Melendez administration it is closed but you can get in by asking the guys at the Panteón Nacional Román Baldorioty de Castro to let you in (they have the keys). Mercy11 (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing "in" with "within". In English, "women in Puerto Rico" means "women throughout the history of Puerto Rico", while "women within Puerto Rico" would mean "women constrained to the geographical area covered by the island of Puerto Rico". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Notable Puerto Rican women section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We agreed to develop an introductory paragraph for the section. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Sila María Calderon is mentioned within the article. Sonia Sotomayor and Jennifer Lopez are stateside Puerto Ricans who made their mark outside of Puerto Rico. Their contributions would be better included in an article about Stateside Puerto Rican women. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Sila has been mentioned in the prose before. Our section summary must mention her as she is the most important woman in Puerto Rican history. This must be stated in this section. Regarding JLo, she has actually placed her mark in Puerto Rico thanks to her foundation, the Lopez Family Foundation; see [1]. For your convenience:

The Lopez Family Foundation is excited to announce the launch of our first telemedicine center in San Juan, Puerto Rico, at the San Jorge Children's Hospital, and a second link coming shortly at the University Pediatric Hospital at the Centro Medico.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To state that Sila María Calderon is the most important woman in Puerto Rican history is an opinion and not a fact. Anything regarding her can be posted where she is already mentioned. There is no denying that J Lo is Puerto Rican because of her heritage and that the Lopez Family Foundation is great, however J Lo still is a stateside Puerto Rican. There she resides and has made her mark. She would best represent the Puerto Rican woman in an article about stateside Puerto Rican woman. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I made that statement on this talk page, not on the article. The text on the article was "the most well known [Puerto Rican women] throughout history include Sila." which is true and verifiable as she was the first woman to be governor of Puerto Rico and has an extensive philanthropic history through her foundation: Center for Puerto Rico. Having said that, you need to understand that the SECTION about notable Puerto Rican women must have an introductory paragraph and in that introductory paragraph we must mention that (1) Puerto Rican women have excelled in many fields and (2) who are the most well known Puerto Rican women throughout history which should obviously include Sila. Just because you have mentioned someone previously on the article does not exclude her from being mentioned again in another part of the article.

Regarding JLo, wether she was born in or resides in the states is irrelevant as she is (1) a Puerto Rican woman, (2) has contributed to Puerto Rico, (3) is internationally recognized as Puerto Rican and (4) has made contributions to Puerto Rico within Puerto Rico's geographical boundaries. She must be mentioned in the section.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The "Notable Puerto Rican Women" could use a well written intro. I agree with that. To tell you the truth, I did not know of the Lopez Family Foundation. That is a point well taken and would justify the mention of J Lo and her actions to the island. I'll work on that one tomorrow. Tony the Marine (talk) 09:17, 6 October 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.

List of Puerto Rican women

Keep the section in prose and the list on List of Puerto Rican women. Talk in prose about the most prominent Puerto Rican women in history and WHY they are considered prominent. For example, Miss Universe's are not considered prominent simply for being a Miss Universe. They are considered prominent if they have had a significant impact on the history of Puerto Rico. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer review #1

History of women in Puerto Rico

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of its importance to Puerto Rico and Wikipedia. We need eyes that are impartial to the subject to offer their criticism and feedback. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Women as the sole economic income source of their families: "many"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We opted to use the adjective some instead. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

---

I can't find the claim that "many women are the sole economic income source of their families." The issue here is the use of the adjective many. We all know that some women are the sole economic income, but "many"? I doubt that as Puerto Rico requires fathers to provide income for both their children and their children's mother(s). I did a search on Google for the phrase and could not come up with anything. I did a review of the citation provided and couldn't find a text that backed up this claim either. Can any of you guys provide the text that made you write such statement? If you can use an {{efn}} template that had be great. That way we don't have to skim all over the reference to find out where is the text that verifies your contribution. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 08:42, 6 October 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.

Focus on women, not solely on "Puerto Rican women"

Be careful on your wording. We should focus on "women in Puerto Rico" not solely on "Puerto Rican women". For example, Ruth Mary Reynolds is important to the history of women in Puerto Rico but she was not a "Puerto Rican woman" (as she was from South Dakota). Same thing with many other women that have contributed to the history of women in Puerto Rico. So be careful with how you paraphrase stuff. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of women in Puerto Rico/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) 15:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Note: this is on hold until further notice (see here). I'm enjoying reading this. I'm going to put it on hold for a final copy edit because there are a few prose issues. For example, was the padded board really secured to the baby's forehead? (Sounds painful!) " That sentence – "Women who were mothers carried their babies on their backs on a padded board that was secured to the baby's forehead" – seems to have come from here (an article from 1996): "Mothers carried their babies on their backs on a padded board that was secured to the baby's forehead." That article continues: "The board flattened the baby's forehead. Thus Taínos had a flat forehead – something they found attractive." So that sentence should be rewritten or attributed, and it would be worth adding something about the consequence. "... by rolling the clay into rope and then layering it to form or shape". Is that to "form a shape"? "Taíno women also carved drawings made from stone or wood with a raised tail used as a backrest". I think that is carved chairs, rather than drawings, and that sentence also comes from the article linked above: "Carved dujos made from stone or wood with a raised tail used as a backrest were carved by both men and women". The section "Women from Africa" begins: "The Spanish colonists, fearing the loss of their labor force, also protested before the courts." It's not clear what "also" refers to there, or what "protested before the courts" means. "As an alternative ..." As an alternative to what? I see now that those sentences seem to have been copied from African immigration to Puerto Rico, where they make sense in context. In paragraph 4 of that section, it says: "The slaves were not emancipated - they had to buy their own freedom, at whatever price was set by their previous owners." Then suddenly: "Puerto Rican cuisine and culture at the time were highly influenced by that of the traditions of the Spanish ..." That needs a paragraph break, at least. I'm going to put the review on hold so that you can read the article through for flow. Anything copied from a source needs to be attributed in the text (see WP:INTEXT), and anything copied from another Wikipedia article should really be rewritten.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	So far as I know these rolling lists for references aren't part of the MoS, and they make it harder to see at a glance which references have been used.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The citations could use some clarification. For example (these are just examples), the book is called The Tainos, not "The Tainos Hardcover", and page numbers are needed. Also, some more information about "2010 US Census" would be helpful; otherwise it's not clear where to find it. And with "Introduction, Puerto Rican Labor Movement", it's not clear what that is. Other examples are the two refs after the paragraph ending "based upon food products that originated in Africa." The first is a dead link, but copies in the Internet Archive don't support the paragraph that I can see; it's also not clear what the source is. The second is also a dead link; the Internet Archive doesn't have a copy.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are a few images that should be checked. File:RColberg2.jpg: not sure this can be claimed as fair use in a gallery in the infobox. Also, I wonder whether File:Rivera's photo.JPG and File:Olga-tañon.jpg really are the work of the uploader. It's also not clear what File:EarlyIrishImmigrants.gif is a photograph of exactly or why it would be in the public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until further notice. [2]

• Note = I just thought that it should be noted that the material posted from other Wikipedia articles were from articles which I also originally wrote. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony, thanks for clarifying that. While the material may flow well in the context of the other articles, it may not flow so well when parts of it are copied elsewhere. I see you've fixed the start of the Women from Africa section, but it's still a bit unclear. "The Spanish colonists, fearing the loss of their Taino labor force, protested before the Spanish courts." Why did they fear the loss of the Taino labor force? (By the way, "As an alternative, Friar Bartolomé de las Casas, suggested ..." – no comma after Casas.) In African immigration to Puerto Rico, there is an explanation before the sentence in question: "Friar Bartolomé de las Casas, who had accompanied Ponce de León, was outraged at the Spanish treatment of the Taíno. ... He fought for the freedom of the natives and was able to secure their rights." That explains why the Spanish colonists feared the loss of labour, but it's not explained in this article.

As well as checking on the flow, I think the main issue is to make sure that anything taken from off-wiki sources is rewritten or attributed in the text. I see you've made a start on that, which is great. I'll leave this on hold until the end of the seven-day period, but please ping me if there's something you want to discuss before then.

Just as an aside, you could use some commas in this sentence: "When Spain ceded the island to the United States after the Spanish-American War in accordance with the Treaty of Paris of 1898 Puerto Rico became an unincorporated territory of the United States or an American colony as defined by the United Nations decolonization committee." There are several ways you could do it; for example: "When Spain ceded the island to the United States after the Spanish-American War, in accordance with the Treaty of Paris of 1898, Puerto Rico became an unincorporated territory of the United States, or an American colony as defined by the United Nations decolonization committee."

Also, some typos in footnote 10: "Chronolgy of Hispnaic Americam History". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 29 November 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.

Article title

Shouldn't this article be titled Women in Puerto Rico to match the convention of all our other similar articles? Kaldari (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That was the name of the article before I moved it to its current name ("History of..."). Anyway, we really don't have a convention for these topics. For example, we have:

• Women in Afghanistan redirects to → Women's rights in Afghanistan
• Women in Canada redirects to → History of Canadian women
• Women in Cuba redirects to → Women's rights in Cuba
• Women in El Salvador redirects to → Gender inequality in El Salvador
• Women in Guatemala redirects to → Violence against women in Guatemala
• Women in Haiti redirects to → Women's rights in Haiti
• Women in Honduras redirects to → Gender inequality in Honduras
• Women in Saudi Arabia redirects to → Women's rights in Saudi Arabia
• Women in Sri Lanka redirects to → Gender roles in Sri Lanka
• Women in the United States redirects to → History of women in the United States

I think the current title is perfect since we are covering all the history of women and not a specific sub-topic (such as rights, suffrage, roles, etc). Just my two cents.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Carmen Yulín Cruz

How about San Juan Mayor, Carmen Yulín Cruz, who is currently in the news? MaynardClark (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's outside of the scope of this article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of women in Puerto Rico

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of women in Puerto Rico's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "PRH":

• From Enrique Figueroa: Puerto Rico Herald
• From San Juan, Puerto Rico: The History of Puerto Rico From the Spanish Discovery to the American Occupation / Middeldyk, R.A. Van Identifier: etext12272 The History of Puerto Rico From the Spanish Discovery to the American Occupation Archived January 22, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
• From List of Stateside Puerto Ricans: Puerto Rico Herald
• From Puerto Rico Adjutant General: Puerto Rico Herald - Profile: Orlando Llenza
• From List of Puerto Ricans: "Fernando E. Rodríguez Vargas profile". Puerto Rico Herald. Retrieved 2016-04-05.
• From Anita Lallande: Puerto Rico Herald
• From Monserrate Román: Puerto Rico Herald
• From Afro-Puerto Ricans: "Commonwealth Gives Puerto Rico A Sports Identity". Puerto Rico Herald. Archived from the original on March 3, 2016. Retrieved July 23, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Military history of Puerto Rico: The History of Puerto Rico From the Spanish Discovery to the American Occupation / Middeldyk, R.A. Van Identifier: etext12272 The History of Puerto Rico From the Spanish Discovery to the American Occupation Archived 2008-01-22 at the Wayback Machine
• From Sylvia del Villard: N.Y. Encyclopedia of Famous Puerto Ricans

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Women and article name change

Puerto Ricans are the people of Puerto Rico, the inhabitants, and citizens of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and their descendants. Stateside Puerto Ricans are also ambiguously Puerto Rican Americans or Puerto Ricans in the United States, are Puerto Ricans in the United States proper (the 50 states and the District of Columbia), who were born in or trace family ancestry to the US territory of Puerto Rico.

According to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, women who are born to Puerto Rican parents in the United States or elsewhere, are considered to be Puerto Rican citizens. On November 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, through its ruling in Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer v. Juan Mari Brás, reaffirmed the standing existence of the Puerto Rican citizenship. Since 2007, the Government of Puerto Rico has been issuing "Certificates of Puerto Rican Citizenship" to anyone born in Puerto Rico or to anyone born outside of Puerto Rico with at least one parent who was born in Puerto Rico.

That is why people born outside of Puerto Rico, but of Puerto Rican descent such as Jennifer Lopez for example, proudly identify themselves as Puerto Ricans. The same goes for the African-Americans or Mexican Americans who proudly identify themselves with the homeland of their ancestors. I for one am one of those people. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If someone identifies as Puerto Rican because they were born of Puerto Rican parents, I think we can not tell them they are not Puerto Rican.

I copied this text from the Jasmine Camacho-Quinn article where her Puerto Rican identity was questioned.

===Identity===

Born and raised in South Carolina, Camacho-Quinn decided later in life that she wanted to know more about her mother's side of the family, who live in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico. She identifies as a Puerto Rican. In July 2021, she tweeted about her mother, "You see my mommy? The PUERTO RICAN woman that birthed me?" and stated "I am Puerto Rican" in a video posted by the Puerto Rican Olympic Committee.

Camacho-Quinn is the first Afro-Puerto Rican to win a gold medal was celebrated by social anthropologist Bárbara Abadía-Rexach, who stated "Camacho-Quinn’s victory is a pioneering example for black girls on the island that shows them they can achieve whatever they set their minds to, despite the systemic barriers they will encounter due to their gender, race and ethnicity." --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

References

You may also see [Puerto Rico Bio Content Guide] --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted, and will contest the name change made today, which was unnecessary and made only to settle a content dispute. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677 It appears there was already a discussion in place above about this new section you had just created. For the sake of completeness and avoiding the risks associated with making assumptions, can you provide a link to your referenced "content dispute", by skipping that link you deprive the community of a valuable piece of information that may help you case. One relevant point here is whether or not both Marine 69-71 and yourself are both being transparent, and just alleging content dispute without a link to support your claim is too vague. Mercy11 (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mercy11: Look at the edit history. There was an ongoing dispute about the addition of names of people not in Puerto Rico, and not from Puerto Rico. To solve this, that editor changed the name of the article. I am disputing this controversial move, and have restored the original article title. The longstanding content of this article has been about women in Puerto Rico. List of Puerto Rican women--a link added to this article nine years ago when all the "stateside" Puerto Rican names were removed--is where women of Puerto Rican descent should be added. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Of course I renamed the article to: "History of Puerto Rican Woman". Because you stated the following: "This article is titled "women IN Puerto Rico", not "women FROM Puerto Rico".", therefore I changed the articles title as you suggested, because it was a more proper title to include not only the woman born in Puerto Rico as it was in the "History of Women in Puerto Rico", but to include the woman who are proud of their Puerto Rican heritage and identify as such. You reverted me again in an attempt to proof your point and removed three paragraphs of the contributions made to the music industry of three women who are proud to identify as Puerto Rican without even discussing your intentions. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677, thanks for that information; I now understand the dispute. It reminds me of the chicken or the egg dilemma: "Should the article contents adhere strictly to the title or should the title be strictly defined by the article contents?"

WP:TITLE states "the title indicates what the article is about", but unfortunately says nothing regarding whether or not the contents must adhere to the title, which would had been beneficial here. In particular, what's happening here is that your interpretation of what the article is about differs from Marine's because you both have a different definition for "who is Puerto Rican" (more on that shortly). WP:OOS, WP:TOPIC and WP:REL don't help much either. IAE, given both of your edit summaries below it appears the dispute here basically boils down to, "Who is a Puerto Rican, one born in Puerto Rico or one born to one or more Puerto Rican parents?" Is that correct?

• Marine: "Despite the fact that the names removed were born in New York, they are still Puerto Rican by heritage which have accepted. Any person who is not born in Puerto Rico, but has a Puerto Rican [parent] is considered to be a Puerto Rican" , and
• Magnolia: "This article is titled 'women IN Puerto Rico', not 'women FROM Puerto Rico' "

It seems to me that with the move Marine 69-71 was trying to broaden the scope of the article to all women of Puerto Rican heritage as opposed to having to create a new article just for Stateside Puerto Rican women. I note that we have, for example, List of Americans but also List of American women artists. We have History of women in the United States but also Americans in India, which defines itself as "immigrants from the United States living in India, along with Indian citizens of American descent". Using that last one as an example, something called Puerto Rican women in the U.S could, likewise, perhaps encompass "women from Puerto Rico living in the United States, along with Americans of Puerto Rican descent."

That said, when we try to define a "Puerto Rican woman", do we define it based narrowly on where she was born or more broadly based on her culture and/or heritage? For example, in The Eloquent Peasant's example above regarding Jasmine Camacho-Quinn, it is an undisputed fact that although Camacho-Quinn was born in the U.S. she not only competed for Puerto Rico in the Olympics but also wanted to identify herself as Puerto Rican, which explains her regular appearances to Puerto Rico before her 2016 Rio competition as well as before and after her Tokyo 2020 win and which continue thru today as evidenced here, refencing an upcoming May 2022 appearance. WP has categories such as Category:American people of Puerto Rican descent, so the dispute here is not whether or not Puerto Rico is a separate entity from the U.S., but instead it seems to be "Who qualifies as 'Puerto Rican'"?

If this the case, I took a look at List of Puerto Ricans and all 3 women in dispute here (Nedra Talley, Irene Cara, and Jennifer Lopez) are listed there, 2 of them for over 10 years. That said, how about moving the article to "History of women from Puerto Rico", which seems to have been alluded to by Magnolia? or how about creating 2 articles, one about the history of the Puerto Rican woman and another about Puerto Rican women in general that could cover those in the Island, in the US and, for that matter, everywhere else in the world? (it currently redirects to History of women in Puerto Rico)

One important, but perhaps underplayed, aspect in this dispute are the prepositions, and Magnolia alluded to this ("article is titled 'women IN Puerto Rico', not 'women FROM Puerto Rico'"). WP has pointed out the difference between IN and OF here, which also applies equally, as it states on its first statement, to differentiating between IN and FROM, the two prepositions you used in your edit summary above, Magnolia.

Magnolia677, I believe, is attempting to stick to a definition of "Puerto Rican" only as that person who was born in Puerto Rico and not anywhere else. If this is the case, this can be tricky for at least two reasons: (1) because this would imply that a person born in Puerto Rico to Americans parents will be Puerto Rian only and not American, and (2) because even the US Government recognizes as American anyone born --anywhere in the world-- of at least one American parent (here). Globalization, transnationalism, transculturalism, and post-colonialism, have made it more difficult to identify the ethnicity of people based solely on place of birth, which is what Magnolia677, I believe, is attempting to stick to. For example, if a woman is born in Puerto Rico but who then moves to the US, is she no longer a Puerto Rican because of where she now lives? If she continues to be Puerto Rican, will her first born child, born in the US, be only American but not Puerto Rican? If that first born offspring is now American, and not Puerto Rican, because it was born in the US, what will the same woman's second-born child be if she moves back to Puerto Rico and her second born child is born in Puerto Rico, Puerto Rican, and not American, because it was born in Puerto Rico and not in the US? If that's the case then we end up with the case of two brothers born of the same Puerto Rican parents, but one of which is American and the other one a Puerto Rican, because of their place of birth. This is the basis of birth tourism, whereby foreign pregnant mothers come to the US on tourist visas with the purpose of giving birth in the US so the child can be an American citizen. However, Puerto Ricans are already American citizens by birth, no matter if they were born in the US or in Puerto Rico. So, obviously, the issue with Puerto Ricans being American and/or Puerto Ricans based solely on place of birth doesn't quite apply...unless, of course, we define "American" and "Puerto Rican" based on cultural heritage and not on place of birth at all.

There is already a list namespace article titled List of Puerto Rican women which, as its name implies, is strictly a list; its corresponding article namespace entry would be History of Puerto Rican women, the name you opposed. If the article in dispute stayed as History of women in Puerto Rico, its corresponding list namespace entry would become List of women in Puerto Rico, which is not a customary way of naming such articles (e.g., we don't have articles named List of women in the United States or List of women in France, etc.) and would be inconsistent with the best practices presented at WP:INOF. Magnolia677, outside the fact that Marine attempted to settle the content dispute he had with you by changing the article title to fit his added content (and which would certainly catch any opponent's attention), doesn't History of Puerto Rican women appear to be the right name anyway? Mercy11 (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mercy11: I do not feel the name of this article needs to be changed, particularly when the only reason for doing that is so three celebrities from New York can be added. The list article can easily be expanded. Also, your message was just shy of 1,200 words, and to be honest, you lost me after the first 500. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of women not from Puerto Rico

User:Marine 69-71 has been adding information about women not born in Puerto Rico, but who are of Puerto Rican ancestry. The scope of this article is obvious from the title ("in" Puerto Rico) , and detailed information about women not born in Puerto Rico, and who have never lived in Puerto Rico, should be removed. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This article was renamed "History of Puerto Rican Woman". Because it was a more proper title to include not only the woman born in Puerto Rico as it was in the "History of Women in Puerto Rico", but to include the woman who are proud of their Puerto Rican heritage and identify as such. You however (the above editor) reverted it without consulting those who are interested in the subject.

You do not have to be born in Puerto Rico to be a Puerto Rican. Puerto Rican citizenship was never revoked by the United States. As a matter of fact the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, has stated that women who are born to Puerto Rican parents in the United States or elsewhere, are Puerto Rican citizens. On November 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, through its ruling in Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer v. Juan Mari Brás, reaffirmed the standing existence of the Puerto Rican citizenship. Since 2007, the Government of Puerto Rico has been issuing "Certificates of Puerto Rican Citizenship" to anyone born in Puerto Rico or to anyone born outside of Puerto Rico with at least one parent who was born in Puerto Rico.

That is why people born outside of Puerto Rico, but of Puerto Rican descent such as Jennifer Lopez for example, proudly identify themselves as Puerto Ricans. The same goes for the African-Americans or Mexican Americans who proudly identify themselves with the homeland of their ancestors. I for one am one of those people. Please do not offend those who proudly identify themselves as Puerto Ricans just because they were born somewhere else. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Comment - Pls note the following section above (2013), on this talk page where it's explained that the scope is not just on Puerto Rican women. For example Ruth Mary Reynolds is in this article because of her impact on Puerto Rico. How about Women in the history of Puerto Rico?--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marine 69-71 and The Eloquent Peasant: Again, there is a procedure to follow for controversial name changes. Please follow the instructions at WP:RMCM. Second, the longstanding content of this article--as indicated by the article's title--has been women in Puerto Rico. Women of Puerto Rican heritage can be added to List of Puerto Rican women. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the title has to change. My sister and I are Puerto Rican, even though she was born in the U.S. and I was born in P.R. (My sister is not the only person who has this problem about being Puerto Rican while not born or living there). Many Puerto Rican women have not been born nor live there but have Puerto Rican parents who migrated to the US. i.e. the Olympic runner Jasmine Camacho-Quinn. If we do not change the article title and go by what Magnolia677 says we would have to remove Jasmine Camacho-Quinn who competed for P.R. and got a gold medal for Puerto Rico, and many others. It is strange to want to stick to the article title in order to exclude women not born or who have never lived there, when they have contributed to the history of Puerto Rico.

So then what is the scope? Is Jasmine Camacho-Quinn out and is Ruth Mary Reynolds out? Where would Ruth go given she wouldn't go on the list of Puerto Rican women because she isn't but contributed to the history of Puerto Rico. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the scope is Women and the history of Puerto Rico. The thing is the prepositions "in, on, of, for", etc. get in the way. The scope is how women have contributed to the history of Puerto Rico. I think given the examples of Jasmine Camacho-Quinn, Olympic gold medalist for Puerto Rico and Ruth Mary Reynolds and Jennifer Lopez and others, what we should work on is the article title, not on excluding women who don't fit into the article title. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)