Jump to content

Talk:Puerto Rican Spindalis/Archive 1

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

National bird of Puerto Rico?

Puerto Rico isn't a nation, it is a commonwealth of the United States. Shouldn't it be "commonwealth bird of Puerto Rico"? Algr 05:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Since Taiwan (a territory of China) has an official national bird I see no reason why Puerto Rico should not have one. I would rather this not turn into a political debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joelr31 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 2006 February 15 (UTC).
  • It's not politics so much as vocabulary. Puerto Ricans consider themselves american, and I doubt that whatever organization picked the Spindalis actually said "National Bird". The Taiwan situation is totally different - that government used to rule all of China. Algr 17:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm puertorican and I can assure you the inmense mayority of puertoricans do not consider themselves 'americans' (as if: from the USA). On the other hand Puerto Rico is consider a nation wich belongs to/ is a colony of another. Nnfolz 17:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Adivina donde nació mi mamá.  :) We'll have to disagree about popular opinion in Puerto Rico, but what is important is that the article as written leaves the casual reader (someone who is interested in birds and knows nothing about PR) with the false-but-common impression that Puerto Rico is a nation. This option gets 2-4% at referendums vrs 46% for statehood so this is not what puertoricans want. Simply saying "the official bird of Puerto Rico" is accurate, and sidesteps a big discussion that has nothing to do with Puerto Rican Spindalis. Algr 05:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have any idea of the definition of nation? Because Puerto Rico fits that definition perfectly. Here is the official definition form the diccionary of the 'Real Academia Española' (I did my best in translating it as acurratley as possible):
Nación
From lat. natĭo, -ōnis).
1. f. Group of people living under the same goverment.
2. f. Territory of that goverment.
3. f. Group of people who share a common heritage and generally share the same language and traditions.
Are you going to tell me now that Puerto Rico does not fit under those definitions (they are two more meanings but they are irrelevant to the topic at hand)? Puerto Rico is a nation. By definition is true. If you are going to state in a discussion that Puerto Rico is not I suggest you start doing research and bringing evidence suporting your claims that the mayority of the people here don´t consider themselves a nation (like a poll or something)... You know what: don´t even bother. A poll was made a couple of years ago by a local newspaper called 'El Nuevo Dia' and the results compleatly contradict your statements, but still I invite you to try and sustain your arguments. Why? because I know you won´t be able to. Nnfolz 16:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • - Utah, Texas, and New York city all fit that description. This is called "argument by bizarre definition". You can "prove" anything you want by rendering the language meaningless. Just because people take pride in their state or ethnic group doesn't mean that they want to be a nation.
- You looked up an English word in a Spanish dictionary? That's just bizarre. There is no reason to think that "Nación" has the same usage as "nation".
- Nnfolz & Tony the Marine, you don't love Puerto Rico. You love this dream that you want to turn Puerto Rico into, and you seem to see the real Puerto Ricans as an obstacle. Your body may live on that island, but your mind has no idea of the beauty that surrounds you. Algr 01:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes I looked an english word in a spanish dictionary because that is the most official dictionary I could find on the net. It matters not how you wan´t to clasify the arguments, what I'm stating is true. From your arguments I can see your debating this because of your political ideas and not the linguistical acurracy. I'm the exact opposite. It seems to me your political fanatism blinds you into trying to go against the verry dictionary that carry the definition of the word in question. That same fanatism made you assume to that I favor independence. Let it be known that I do not favor independence for Puerto Rico (but that is subject for another debate) and my political ideals have nothing to do with the fact that your worong in your interpretation that Puerto Rico is not a nation because it is. Whether you like it or not Puerto Rico is a nation and the great mayority of puertoricans consider that Puerto Rico is in fact a nation (u should have seen all the bad criticism former governor Pedro Rossello got by saying otherwise) and there is nothing you can do about it. I dare you to bring evidence on the contrary and I will put this discussion to rest, but until you can refute my arguments I will not allow you to missinform the people by adding information who is not based on fact and is based solely on your (and possibly your mom's) political ideas.Nnfolz 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That description is exactly how I've been seeing you. (Although some of what I said was aimed at Tony the Marine, not you. Read his profile.)
I've never discussed Puerto Rico like this before. But I have seen a number of important words become meaningless due to people pushing their private agenda. "Fluid head tripod", "CD quality", and "Mb" are all examples of words that I need for my work, but can no longer trust when I read them. Without words, no one can ever understand anyone else. This is why languages must be defended, and words must be used properly. (At least in venues like wikipedia. I wouldn't hold an entertainment program to this standard.) I'm sure that you know what Nación means better then I do, but that is not what this discussion is about. This is about an english word - nation, and what it means when english speakers read it. What the reader understands when he or she reads what we write here is what is important. Don't confuse them.
  • Nation is the english word for nacion. It translate exactly like dog to 'perro' and cat to 'gato'. Ther eis no ambiguity in meanings like for instance words like light wich can mean 'luz' 'liviano' 'suave'. I dare to ask: how by insisting in using the correct word I'm confusiing people? Nnfolz 06:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My friend Joel, I can understand the misinformation that Algr has about Puerto Rico. There are many people that do not know that our country has its own language, culture, customs and traditions and therefore is defined as a "nation", maybe not an independent nation, but a nation none the less, that has refused to give up thier heritage. That is why the Spindalis is called the National Bird of Puerto Rico. Another thing that Algrs' most likely doesn't know is that American citizenship was imposed upon Puerto Ricans in 1917 without even a consultation. Those things are not written in the U.S. History books. That's why the majority of the Puerto Ricans feel proud to identify themselves as Puerto Ricans and not "Americans". Anyway, I'm proud of your work because you are educating others about our island. Tony the Marine 05:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Algr, I know that you are well intentioned however, I would like to remind you that the article is an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia policy does not permite POV based on political or religious beliefs but, only information based on facts. I have written over 300+ articles and I have never imposed my person beliefs but, based my information on verifiable facts. My personal profile should not bother you but, should show you that I am a person with nothing to hide. I hope that you make positive contributions to the pedia instead of creating debates. Take care, Tony the Marine 19:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Algr just knows the PNP will coger una pela now that the census is coming and statehood will dissapear forever. Those who call themselves Puerto Ricans but want Puerto Rico to be a state are the saddest joke, with the exception of some, great humans who are members of the PNP. Algrs doesn't know that the USA has to pay Puerto Rico billions of dollars acco-rding to the United Nations laws once independency or an independent commonwealth status are reached. Either that, or he's just using wikipedia to prevent the PNP's defeat. Talking about love for Puerto Rico and this and that, nobody loves Puerto Rico more than the PPD's and PIP's, who recognize Puerto Rico will truly be a Banana state, to rephrase Algrs, if statehood is achieved. More over, Congress will not approve Puerto Rico as a state but President Bush has stated interest in giving Puierto Rico independency. Antonio Real Puerto Rican Martin
  • Those who call themselves Puerto Ricans but want Puerto Rico to be a state are the saddest joke You must really hate Puerto Rico if you hold 46% of the population who voted for this in such contempt. Algr 20:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the Puertorican Parrot?

I'm not sure but I always tought that was the oficial bird. At leat I believe is the most famous since I've never heard of the Spindalis before. Nnfolz 17:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sitographics.com/enciclog/banderas/america/source/29.html

Ask your mom to translate it for you. It state among other things:

Ave nacional: reina mora (spyndalis zena)
Flor nacional: flor de maga (montezuma speciossisima)
Arbol nacional: ceiba (ceiba pentandra) Nnfolz 13:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine, you win. Lets confuse everyone into thinking that all the Puerto Ricans in New York are illegal immigrants and Three Kings Day is some kind of terrorist plot. It's worth it to bring nationalism into an article about birds. Algr 19:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not misleading anyone nor I'm trying to confuse anybody. Your right that si not worth bringing nationalism in an article about birds. Please take note of that because it was you who started this patethic controversy. Again I ask you: how by using the correct word I'm confusing people? Nnfolz 06:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Read it yourself, it says "sovereign state" just like my link.
  • Okay, lets try something different. Consider the following sentence: "The Bald Eagle is the official bird of the United States." Would anyone object to this? Algr 18:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Dude your persistence towards this topic has nothing to do with being correct, finding consensus or making wikipedia better. It has to do with some wrong political believes that make you argue the fact that Puerto Rico is a nation.Nnfolz 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico fields "national" teams to IOC and FIFA events. Guettarda 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reaching consensus.

It's clear that banging around with edits isn't going to accomplish anything - we need to find a statement that we all agree on. It is perfectly accurate to say "The Bald Eagle is the official bird of the United States." It is not necessary to get into political discussions in order to make this connection. This is why I feel that you are the ones who are injecting POV into the article when you insist on including "national" in this context, when the political status of PR is irrelevant to the article. I've told you the misinformation that I was worried about spreading. Please tell me what potential misinformation might be spread by saying "The Spindalis is the official bird of Puerto Rico."

I am also reading wikipedia's policy on resolving disputes, and would like to get some disinterested parties to help us. Algr 06:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask you to explain: how using the correct word for something is injecting my personal POV on the article? Please take into account that it is you who are trying to mislead people into thinking Puerto Rico is not a nation. It is you who oppose the use of the correct word because of your (and posibly your mom's) political ideas. Nnfolz 06:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have submitted this issue to the Mediation Cabal for resolution. Please feel free to add your comments to the "Comments by others" section.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-19 Is Puerto Rico a nation?

I'd like to point out that nations do not have to be soverign to be nations, hence the phrase nation-state, a state based around a nation is a nation-state, but a nation does not have to be based around a state. This however makes the definition of nation vs. ethnic group kinda hazy in my opinion. Puerto Ricans are definitely an ethnic group, beyond that I don't know. I vote for national bird of Puerto Rico simply because I doubt anyone would say commonwealth bird ever in real life, it just sounds akward. I'm not familiar with all the protocols here, but in cases like this aren't you supposed to use the phrase normally used, technicalities aside.

One last try at Consensus

The Puerto Rican Spindalis is also the "national bird" of the United States Commonwealth of Puerto Rico [1].

I find this clumsy, but it solves the false implication problem, and maintains "national".

No, the use of scare quotes is POV. Guettarda 20:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The information in the sentence is acurrate but I found it to be to long. I find the current wording: "The Puerto Rican Spindalis is also the national bird of Puerto Rico" to be easier to digest.Nnfolz 06:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Well of course everyone is going to like their own version the best, but we are trying to reach consensus. Most people reading the current version will assume that Puerto Rico is a sovereign state. Since they are thinking about birds, and not politics, they likely won't realize that this statement might have other meanings. It is the writer's responsibility to detect and correct potential misinterpretations of his/her writing. Algr 00:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You can also say: "The Puerto Rican Spindalis is also the national bird of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico" wich is shorter and still accurate. Anyhow nation does not means by any standard 'sorveing state'.Nnfolz 06:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though I like it how it already is, because it already states that PR is a Commonwealth, so how about "The Puerto Rican Spindalis is the national bird of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States)" Tony the Marine 05:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the right word and the almost-right word, is the difference between a lightning bug and lightning. - Mark Twain

Recommended reading: nation. Guettarda 05:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't understand this debate. A nation does not need to have sovereignty to be recognized. The Cherokee nation exists and yet it does not have a sovereign state! Puerto Rico participates in the olympics independently! People who see the olympics every four years might assume that PR is independent. And yet, you don't see any disclaimer in the olympics stating that "Puerto Rico has a team, but they are not a country." Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican culture are part of a national identity, regardless of political occurrance. I think that saying "The Puerto Rican Spindalis is the national bird of Puerto Rico" is just fine.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 17:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Cherokee nation" refers to a collection of people who remain part of that nation wherever they go. This can not refer to a sovereign state, because no land mass is defined that such a government would have full political control over. "Puerto Rico" is an area of land. Land does not have language or culture - only the people ON the land have this, and they take it with them if they go elsewhere. So when the word "nation" is used to describe a land mass, the only possible interpretation is that of a sovereign state with total political control. Thus the Puerto Rican People are a "nation" in the cultural sense, but the island that the Spindalis are the official bird of is not a nation, nor is the government that chose the Spindalis "national". Finally, this distinction might not apply to the spanish word "Nación", which is why certain PR institutions refer to themselves as such. Algr 22:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

The following is to determine which would be the best pharse to describe the Puerto Rican Spindalis. Please vote between "National" or "Official". Arguments have already been placed (see above). The consensus will last for a period of five days. It is agreed that the final results will be respected by all particpants.

National Tony the Marine 14:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

National Nnfolz 15:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

National - Guettarda 15:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

National- Antonio Patria Keeper Martin 08:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Official- Algr 08:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

National <<Coburn_Pharr>> 17:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

National Joelito 22:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

National Smylere Snape 02:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

National Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 05:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Meaningless poll

I've already explained to you guys why a poll is meaningless in this case. You can't expect this to be respected after you ignored a ruling from the Cabal. You have made it worse by only notifying people who agree with you, while ignoring Pmsyyz and Sceptre, and anyone else on my side but me. And then you deleted my question when I asked about it. And don't bring up that I didn't IM you about the cabal request, I didn't IM ANYONE because I didn't know I was supposed to - my notification was completely neutral. I posted the notice only here and none of you had any trouble fining it.

It is easy to get people mobilized into thinking that they are defending the dignity of the motherland against some imagined oppressor. It is much harder to explain to people the importance of defending the wikipedia reader against subtle misdirection. That is why you have been able to round up a band of suporters, and I haven't. (Plus I don't know my way around here very well.) Algr 20:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ruling from the cabal"? You mean a mediation attempt by a new member of a wholly unoffical body? As for "defending the dignity of the motherland" - if you choose to attribute motive, at least you should figure out where people are from. Did you read the nation article? Did you consider the fact that lots of international bodies accept PR as a nation?
In addition, while I can't speak for everyone, this isn't a matter of "rounding up supporters". Active editors find their way to a new article. Did anyone round you up? It so happens that most active editors interested in these topics disagree with you. You keep telling everyone else that they are wrong, but you don't address any of the evidence that they raise. I don't think you have acknowledged any of the points I have raised. Simply telling everyone else that they are wrong (regardless of the evidence they provide) and that you are right (despite your failure to produce evidence) isn't an effective way to get your point across. Guettarda 21:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

These were the final words from the "Cabal" and I quote "It's my first case, and I've made a royal balls of it. Sorry.Sceptre (Talk) 22:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)". Tony the Marine 00:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please consider the Wikipedia reader

I let you guys get me off track with the question of "is Puerto Rico a nation". The answer to this is besides the point. Good encyclopedic writing is not about what is "technically permissible" or what right you have to use certain words. Writing is about what gives the reader the most accurate picture of the subject. I offended you when I offered a blunt explanation of why I thought "National bird" was a problem, and I apologize for that. But now it seems to me that you guys are intentionally trying to spite me by confusing the naive reader into thinking that Puerto Rico is a sovereign state. Just because you aren't directly saying this doesn't mean you aren't responsible for the assumptions that you know people will make when reading your words. Good writing is not about what you should be able to get away with, but about informing the reader without sneaking in bias. Algr 20:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what wikilinks are for. Anyone who know so little about Puerto Rico that they might mistake it for an independent state can just click on the link and find out. Seriously - would anyone who knew enough to recognise the name "Puerto Rico" (and not confuse it with Costa Rica) not know its status? Anyone who knows enough to be confused can always click on the link. On the other hand, the vast majority of people who find their way to this article would have enough of a clue to know the status of PR (at least vaguely). It would not help them much to have all the extra(neous) verbiage. Guettarda 21:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
People need to know they have a question before they can seek out an answer. If they don't realize they have made an assumption, then they won't know to click on the wikilink to confirm or deny it. It's quite possible to recognize a name without really knowing anything about it. For example, here are some names most people will recognize - but without looking it up, see if you are certain which are sovereign states and which aren't:
Tasmania
New Zealand
Tibet.
Burma.
Borneo
Greenland
New Mexico
Galapagos islands
Recently there was a minor fiasco over the US government getting one of these wrong. (I hope I've avoided any more debatables like Taiwan.) I just mean this as a quick game to illustrate a point. I don't expect I'd get it all right if you made a list for me, but it might be fun to try. I bet you won't all come up with the same answers without researching first. Algr 03:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem with any of these if you do it like this (but to answer as you asked):

Not that I see your point. Guettarda 16:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ak! You gave away the answers! I wanted everyone to try it. And linking to the articles moots the point of the game. My point is that when writing an article, you can't simply assume that everyone already knows everything you do. It's not about what YOU know, but about making sure you don't inadvertently slip in misinformation on the side.

If you read those articles before answering, then you have missed the point. You didn't know to read them until _after_ you saw the questions. The US government got one of these wrong because someone didn't realize that their was something they didn't know. You can just dismiss it and say "Oh that lady was stupid", but isn't the purpose of wikipedia to solve such things by informing people accurately? Algr 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oop. Sorry. But no, I didn't read the articles before answering - I answered off the top of my head. But I provided to links to illustrate the fact that you don't need to explain everything in detail - you can link to it. Guettarda 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Reading the articles was exactly the point. I myself did not know the political status of all of the places you listed but by having a wikilink I found out. That's the idea behind wiki links. Joelito 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

State Bird?

How about calling it the State Bird of Puerto Rico. The term state applies to Puerto Rico in all levels, since the state is, by definition, the government of a place, no matter what the sovereingty of the place is (The Roman state, the state of Nevada, the Spanish state, ect) Also, as a commonwealth (which is know of a misnomer since in Spanish the term is Free and Associated State), we have State roads, State police, ect.Smylere Snape 02:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"State bird" can be justified using the same kind of dictionary interpretations as "National bird", such as you describe. But that takes us to the same problem as "National bird" in the other direction. Read in the context of an article that says nothing else about politics, it would imply that Puerto Rico is a US state. (Yes some people will be fooled. If everyone knew this stuff, we wouldn't need encyclopedias!) Algr 03:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Confused about debate.

Okay, I'm confused. It seems to me that there is dispute over whether Puerto Rico is a nation, and especially over whether the term national can apply to features of its government.

Since this page is not really about Puerto Rico, though, much less about whether it's a nation, and there's a way to completely sidestep the question (by saying official bird of Puerto Rico without using any words like nation/state/commonwealth that could be taken to imply one thing or the other), I don't see how this dispute is relevant to the article. What's wrong with just saying official? (I read this entire page, and no one seemed to give any arguments against saying official. My apologies if I've misunderstood arguments that were intended to oppose the word official.)

Ruakh 15:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that it was originally labeled as 'national', but Algr started an argument about how that should be removed because Puerto Rico was not a nation. Me and some others corrected hi and an argument started with Algr on one side saying (without any kind of proof) that Puerto Rico wasn't a nation and with me and some other sstating and proving the contrary. Why not label it 'official' to stop the dispute? Would you label the 'Star Splangled Banner' (sorry if I got spelling wrong) 'official' just because someone said the US was nto a nation? I don't think so. The same goes with Puerto Rico.Nnfolz 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
But if you'll excuse my saying so, there really is a dispute here, while there really isn't one regarding The Star-Spangled Banner. (Even those who accept the Puerto Rican people as a nation — myself included — might wonder whether the government of the territory of Puerto Rico is really a national government in the proper sense of that phrase.) I understand why you would take offense at Algr's approach — it wasn't very diplomatic on his part to come in here and make the claim that Puerto Rico isn't a nation — but I think you should put your offense aside for the moment and consider that the word official is completely neutral, while national implicitly accepts one POV, a POV that's not as universal as you might think. It's unfortunate that the prior wording had national, such that changing it to official might seem like saying that Puerto Rico isn't a nation; but people reading the article won't know that it used to say national, so won't notice the lack of that word. (Now, the article on Puerto Rico's national anthem is a different story, because "national anthem" is a fixed expression, and people would notice if it instead said "official anthem"; but that's not the case with "national bird.") Ruakh 19:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually Ruakh national bird is a fixed expression also although I must admit it is less common than national anthem. A quick google search returns 57,000 hits for "official bird"( many of them irrelevant or pretaining to the bird flu or bird lists) and "national bird" returns 404,000 hits (although some are also irrelevant to the discussion). My point is that the majorit, if not all, of the references I have found call it national bird of Puerto Rico (ave nacional de Puerto Rico). Joelito 19:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, surprising; I'd never thought of national bird as a fixed expression. Well, then, in that case, there doesn't seem to be an NPOV solution; either we implicitly accept its nationhood by saying national bird, or we implicitly reject it by saying anything else. I'd rather implicitly accept its nationhood than implicitly reject it, since I don't think anyone would be offended by the former but obviously many people would be offended by the latter; so, I guess I support the national bird phrasing. (To avoid confusing or misleading people, though, it might be a good idea to include a footnote that mentions that the use of the term national is a matter of some dispute, and that people should see Puerto Rico#Puerto Rico's Political Status and International Law for more information.) Ruakh 20:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I like your idea of a footnote. Maybe something like : "National bird is the accepted/standard expression to refer to the representative bird denominated by a goverment. This expression does not reflect Puerto Rico's political status. To read about Puerto Rico's political status please refer here". Joelito 20:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
"either we implicitly accept its nationhood by saying 'national bird' or we implicitly reject it by saying anything else." Failure to state something does not imply the opposite. The article doesn't explicitly mention that Puerto Rico is spanish speaking, or tropical, but that does not imply the opposite. (In fact, "tropical" unlike "national" is relevant to Spindalis.) As for Nnfolz's example, I don't think anyone would complain if an article about music happened to mention in passing that "The Star Splangled Banner is the official anthem of the United States." Nnfolz has now said plainly that his objection is about me, not about "official", and I have apologized. Why can't we move past this, and do what is right for the reader?Algr 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: "Failure to state something does not imply the opposite": Usually, that's true, but sometimes not. For example, if I introduce you to people A, B, and C, and make the comment that A and C are good people, then I'm clearly implying something about B. Similarly, if I came across an article that described The Star-Spangled Banner as the "official anthem" of the U.S., I would find it odd, and would probably fix it to read "national anthem." Now, in the case of the U.S., no one ever suggests that it's anything but a nation, so it would sound odd, but it wouldn't imply anything; in the context of Puerto Rico, however, writing "official anthem" instead of "national anthem" would call attention to the nation question. I didn't think that "national bird" was the same kind of fixed expression, which is why I originally commented agreeing with you, but Joelito presents evidence that it is one, so I no longer think that writing "official bird" is a good solution.
Re: "Nnfolz has now said plainly that his objection is about me, not about 'official', and I have apologized. Why can't we move past this, and do what is right for the reader?": Look. I don't think that Nnfolz reacted properly to your edit (not that I really blame him — if someone made a similar change to an article about my home country of Israel, I'd probably overreact, too). And I commend you for stepping forth and apologizing first. But just because people responded emotionally, that doesn't mean that their point is invalid. I really don't think a reader will be harmed by seeing the Puerto Rican Spindalis described as the "national bird of Puerto Rico," especially if there's a footnote. If you're still not happy with that phrasing, consider that sometimes WikiLove might be more important than getting an article exactly the way you want it.
Ruakh 01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we end all diputes and continue to go on with the consensus above. Tony the Marine 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Puerto Rican Spindalis is also the national bird of the United States Commonwealth of Puerto Rico [1].
The only objection to this was the quotes, so is this okay? Algr 06:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

5th day

Today is the 5th day of the poll. What now? Nnfolz 17:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The official consensus (not poll) started on Monday, therefore it will end on Saturday. Once it is over, it has been agreed that what the majority has decided is what will be accepted. This is the way Wiki works when there is a general disagreement on an issue. Tony the Marine 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Consesus Officially Closed

A consensus has been reached, voting is now officially closed.

Final Results: "National": 8, "official": 1

It is suggested that the originator of the article place a footnote in regard to Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States.

As organizer of the consesus I would like to thank all those who participated in the same. Tony the Marine 19:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puerto_Rican_Spindalis/Archive_1&oldid=1144669662"