Jump to content

Talk:Puerto Rico/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Citation needed

There appears to be citation being needed on this article. WBJB003 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think the article needs a citation, you will need to add a citation needed tag at the proper place. See WP:Citation needed. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

typo

There is a sentence in the article:

"This was the first time that the current Puerto Rican was unfurled in Puerto Rican soil. "

which should probably read:

"This was the first time that the current Puerto Rican flag was unfurled on Puerto Rican soil."

(insert the word "flag", change "in" to "on")

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.239.61 (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2011‎ (UTC)

Plagiarism?

It appears that several sections of this article are copy and pasted from gubernatorial sources. My beef with this is that the article is starting to sound as an official government record. If the material can't be sourced to reliable sources besides official reports it should be removed or at least paraphrase. --Jmundo (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

From the Recent developments section: If efforts on the Island do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of acceptable status options that the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. This legislation should commit the United States to honor the choice of Puerto Rico (provided it is one of the status options specified in the legislation) and should specify the means by which such a choice would be made. The Task Force recommends that, by the end of 2012, the Administration develop, draft, and work with Congress to enact the proposed legislation.(Copy and pasted from page 2 from White House report)

From Law Enforcement section: In December 2009, the government of Puerto Rico enacted a new law (Law 191 of 2009) aimed at strengthening the issuance and usage of birth certificates to combat fraud and protect the identity and credit of all U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico. The new law was based on collaboration with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address the fraudulent use of Puerto Rico-issued birth certificates to unlawfully obtain U.S. passports, Social Security benefits, and other federal services. (Copy and pasted from here and [ttp://www.salud.gov.pr/Programas/RegistroDemografico/Documents/06-28-10%20BC%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20English.pdf here])

I agree with the copy/paste allegation. The first one was added in THIS ocassion and, to give further credence to your point, it can be see from this version HERE that the editor did not even bother to remove the carriage returns from his copy/paste.
The second section edit you stated above (Law Enforcement section) was entered in THIS ocassion.
Also on the edit you recently removed HERE, it was entered on THIS ocassion.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • I edited the content removing most of the copyright violation found at Recent development. And eliminated altogether the section on Law Enforcement. Most of the section was copied and pasted from two sources (see my first post). I also believed that too much weight is given to a specific law. Maybe someone can start an article on Puerto Rican birth certificate. --Jmundo (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Weight Issues in the Lede

User:EdgarMCMLXXXI wants to change the wording of the lede with allegations of no neutrality & has been invited to discuss his concerns on this page. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Climate section, fix graph label

There seems to be an error in the minimum range and average temperatures graph label. Both the average temperatures graphs are labeled maximum, while one does link to a graph image that is labeled minimum. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsec96 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! It is fixed now. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit semi-protected) typo

Part of section 4.4 reads

On October 2011, Governor Luis Fortuño set August 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite. If a second status vote is required, it will take place on the same day as the general election in November 6, 2012, he added.

It should be:

In October 2011, Governor Luis Fortuño set August 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite. If a second status vote is required, it will take place on the same day as the general election on November 6, 2012, he added.

Fixed. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Voting For President

I believe it's important to point out that Puerto Ricans can vote for the US President, just residents of Puerto Rico cannot vote for president. This seems to cause a mix-up among many people. For instance, a Puerto Rican born in Puerto Rico and living there cannot vote for president, but if he moves to one of the 50 states or to DC, he can vote for president because he is an American but he is no longer residing in Puerto Rico. Another way of looking at it: if a white or black American lives in the 50 states or DC he can vote for president, but if that white or black American moves to Puerto Rico to live, then he cannot vote for president because he is a resident of Puerto Rico. I say this because I someimes hear people say that Puerto Ricans cannot vote in presidential elections, when actually Puerto Ricans can; however, Puerto Rico itself cannot vote. That's the difference. Perhaps this should be clearly explained.

The article consistency indicated that small difference except in one ocassion. It's now been corrected. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Actually you got it wrong by using the wording "Puerto Ricans...cannot vote for president." I am going to revert back to the previous, which said "they (residents of PR) cannot vote for president." HkCaGu (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you got it wrong.
The key word here is "residents", which was non-exitent in the text and which I first introduced via my edit HERE (It was already found in the footnote but not visible in the body of the article). This paramount keyword was the reason the reader above stated the concern. So you did NOT "revert back to the previous" at all as you are claiming, for the previous version didn't contain the keyword "residents" - you just found another way to state the same thing I fixed. Had you "reverted back" as you are stating, the diff HERE would be null; but it is not: your "residing" word in that diff, keeps the essence of the "residents" keyword which I had originally introduced.
Just for the record...
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Religions, photo

Sometime back I had added a pic of the muslim temple in Ponce to the Religion section in this article, but it was replaced by the Catholic cathedral in San Juan.

Today I have replaced the pic of the Roman Catholic cathedral back with one of a muslim temple. I think the pic of the muslim temple is better that the catholic cathedral for 3reasons: (1) The text of the article states upfront that Catholicism is the dominant religion, yet it also has a picture of a catholic cathedral. This is redundant. Why prove with a photo something that is already a cited fact? (2) The article states Catholicism is the dominant religion, yet it also has a picture of a Catholic cathedral with a caption that states "many religious beliefs are represented in the island". Clearly, if Catholicism is just one religious belief (dominant as it may be), a pic of a Catholic cathedral does not lend support to the statement that "MANY religious beliefs are represented in the island." Thus, a pic of something OTHER THAN Catholicism is best at supporting that statement. (3)The cathedral is located in San Juan. A pic of a structure of a religious group in an area OTHER THAN San Juan would best portray that, in fact, there are religious beliefs other than Catholicism elsewhere in the ISLAND. With this 3rd one, I am not implying that San Juan is not part of the Island, but rather that a pic from an area outside San Juan - which, due to its sheer size, would most often be expected to be a mecca for various religions anyway - is best at representing that, in fact, many religious beliefs are represented in the ISLAND. Regards. Mercy11 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How about adding it to the gallery at the end of the section and having no particular image next to the text? --Ljvillanueva (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Mercy, I have to disagree with your reasons. To me it seems you are nitpicking on the photo for no particular reason. Even if other religious beliefs (Muslims, Jews, etc) are represented the reality is that they are a very small minority when compared to Christians. Why not just have a collage of a few congregation sites (churches, mosques, etc) and eliminate the gallery altogether. To go over your points.
1)If Catholicism is the main religion then a Catholic Church should be prominently displayed.
2?Why not just change the caption.
3)What does it matter where the church is located? San Juan is after all the main population center. it's like talking about Italy and choosing not to display the Colosseum because it's in Rome. Joelito (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider my selection is nitpicking and I presented my reasons above. But likewise if others disagree, I have no problem listening to their opinions!

However, I am not ready to start WWW III (I am being sarcastic, not offensive thru ridicule), so if there is a consensus for another point, I am fine with that. I yield to going back to the way it was or to a 3rd form yet. It really doesn't matter that much to me, but thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts. Regards. Mercy11 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Mercy11 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Joannes Est Nomen Eius, Juan es tu nombre, John is your name

Dantadd here is a published source which states that it is “John is your name”.

Toro, Leonor, Simbolos Nacionales - National Symbols. 1981 “The seal of Puerto Rico, conferred upon the island by the Catholic Kings, Fernando and Isabel, on November 8, 1511 to recognize Puerto Rico as part of the Spanish Empire is described, and the historical, cultural, and religious significance of its components (the lamb, yoke, letters, the Latin phrase for "John Is Your Name," the cross of Jerusalem, the castles, lion, and pennants) are explained and illustrated.”

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED207785&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED207785

I think that will suffice, since WP relies on verifiability, anyhow this is also true. Nevertheless the law of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of March 9 of 1905, nor the updated version of 1976; have made any "official" version of "Juan es TU nombre" or "Juan es SU nombre" it simply states that both are correct, by not enforcing one or the other.

Here are other references for “Juan es tu nombre” in spanish: http://www.prboriken.com/escudo.htm http://www.gabitogrupos.com/PuertoRico/template.php?nm=1257877999 http://members.tripod.com/~Steven_Toro/index-13.html http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Puerto/Rico/artificios/nominales/nacion/Estado/elpepuint/20100819elpepuint_8/Tes http://www.salonhogar.com/est_soc/pr/general/especificaciones.htm http://blog.pucp.edu.pe/item/108535/los-nombres-de-america-puerto-rico Efiiamagus (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree Efiiamagus, but here are my reasons against your statement.
1. Although you present 6 sources in Spanish for the use of "Juan es TU hombre" (John is YOUR name), a quick google search in Spanish resulted in plenty more using the translation into Spanish "Juan es SU nombre." To equal the number of your sources, I also present 6, including Puerto Rico's own government website.
As you know, "su" is 3rd person singular possessive pronoun. Although it is also used for 2nd person singular formal pronoun "usted"; "tu" and "vuestro" (2nd person plural informal and formal possessive pronouns) were used at Columbus' times.
2. A google search of "John is YOUR name" in English brought me no results, but "John is HIS name" brought plenty. Here are at least 4.
3. The shield says "Joannes Est Nomen Ejus;" it doesn't say "Joannes Est Nomen tuus." "Ejus," originally "Eius," is the Latin genitive declination of the third person singular, which means "His/Her/Its," while "tuus" would be that of 2nd person singular. With acknowledgement of WP:Verifiability, not truth (which would imply that we ought to use the "John is YOUR name" claim provided if we only stick to your ONE English source and disregards the many presented by me), WP:Translations and transcriptions permits us to faithfully translate ourselves into English, specially if there are sources that support the translation (see above).
4. Finally, when Columbus said "Joannes Est Nomen Ejus," he was quoting the Bible (Lk 1, 63) when Zachariah writes such words to clarify the name of his son, "John is his name."
5. I also would like to see a source to your claim that "Nevertheless the law of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of March 9 of 1905, nor the updated version of 1976; have made any "official" version of "Juan es TU nombre" or "Juan es SU nombre" it simply states that both are correct, by not enforcing one or the other".--Coquidragon (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I was only trying to provide a published peer reviewed source on the issue. You are committing two very common errors that are classic in Wikipedia:
In fact I encounter them so much that I have them linked to my page.
What I think (and I do have my opinion) is irrelevant. I already provided a source at least for the claim that it is “John is your name”. Can you produce a published, peer reviewed source on the specific topic?
This is the source: Toro, Leonor. Simbolos Nacionales. National Symbols. Author Toro, Leonor for the Connecticut State Migratory Children's Program, New Haven. ERIC Clearinghouse, 1981. 19 p.
You asked me ”I also would like to see a source to your claim that "Nevertheless the law of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of March 9 of 1905, nor the updated version of 1976”. I already gave you the source. It is the “Marzo 9, 1905 r. 1976, Ley que Regula el Escudo de Armas”. <- That is the SOURCE. Look it up, you will see there is no official translation in English or Spanish of the Latin Motto; since as you see it is a bit futile, to attempt to translate a dead post reconstructed language to a modern one.
I will not engage in a discussion about the use of Latin. And the use of possesive/reflexive/demostrative pronouns; eius is a genitive DEMONSTRATIVE pronoun. Latin was a situational language and the correct tranlastion is in the form of the sentence; which is why it is translated as “your” or “tú”; but that will be my opinion and that is after all, irrelevant.
I take by your name you are Puerto Rican; which I am not. So maybe you have a bias or conflict of interest there. Nevertheless you are not presenting secondary peer reviewed sources, only primary self-published ones. The numbers of entries in a Google search are irrelevant.
If you want to change it to reflect the published source I provided do it. I will not engage in an “edit war” over so trivial a thing. If you don’t like the source I provided or want to change it based on primary self-published online sources, go ahead. I think you should reconsider and look for second degree sources and not just first degree ones.
Take care. Have fun editing. Efiiamagus (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's atart in order:
1. You are accusing of committing fallacy? I did not question your sources, nor did I put my primary self-published online sources above yours. I only provided internet sources because you cited 6 of them in your argument. That was my intention behind the first set of 6 links (including Puerto Rico's own government use of the translation into Spanish). Now, since both set of links were in Spanish, yours and mine, and this is English wikipedia, my second set of links tried to provide some English language sources, though primary self-published. I would agree that the number of entries in google doesn't say anything about truth, but I don't think that they are completely irrelevant, since they are pretty indicative about what people know or believe. Furthermore, although I think I am evaluating your argument and providing my argument against and in no way I'm being biased (that is for others to decided, if I am, I apologize), as you say, I am indeed Puerto Rican, and have read plenty of books in English, and never have I read an English translation of the phrase in the Shield as "John is your name." So, I was pretty surprised you did have one secondary peer reviewed source for such incorrect translation. (I don't question your source, I question the translation itself.) I find myself traveling and don't have my books with me, but I will bring you some secondary peer reviewed sources for the correct translation as soon as I can. For now, let's continue.
2. You asked me to look at the law. Well, I did. Why don't you pay a look to the update of the regulation about the Shield: Law 768 (May 11th, 2009) of the Puerto Rican Senate, which clearly states its intent to update the description of the Shield provided in 1511 to modern Spanish, and do states a Spanish translation: "Juan es su hombre." You say "since as you see it is a bit futile, to attempt to translate a dead post reconstructed language to a modern one." Well, the Puerto Rican government did. Here is a link to the law (in Spanish) [1] that provides an official translation of the Shield into Spanish.
3. You say:
"I will not engage in a discussion about the use of Latin."
"Latin was a situational language and the correct tranlastion is in the form of the sentence; which is why it is translated as “your” or “tú”; but that will be my opinion and that is after all, irrelevant."
I agree. Same as yours, my opinion is also irrelevant. Yet I speak now as somebody knowledgeable in Latin, both Classic Latin from my philosophy studies (I also studied in Salamanca like yourself; I got there my degree in Philosophy) and Church Latin for my being a Jesuit (member of the Catholic Religious Order of Priests). Classic Latin might have been a situational language two thousand years ago under the Roman Empire. Yet, Church Latin was pretty much set in stone in the 13th Century. "Eius" is NOT translated into "Your" or "Tú," although I have no idea how that translation, which I agree is in use today, came about.
4. Points 1, 2 and 3 being informative only, the point I'm trying to make is that the sources provided were an attempt to show you parallel translations of the phrase in the Shield. I did not base the change I made to the article on them. I based them on my arguments 3 and 4. Paraphrasing to reflect your latest contribution, with acknowledgement of WP:Verifiability, not truth (which would imply that we ought to use the "John is YOUR name" claim provided if we stick to your secondary peer reviewed source), again, WP:Translations and transcriptions permits us to faithfully translate ourselves into English. Finally, since the phrase is a quote from the Bible and the Book of Luke was written originally in Greek, which reads "ιωαννην εστιν ονομα αυτου" and means "John is his name", there should be no misunderstanding as to what "Joannes Est Nomen Ejus" really means.
5. Thanks. You have being a gentleman in your response, and I hope in my imperfect writing I have also managed to be one.--Coquidragon (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I had the "Ley que regula el Escudo de armas 1905 r. 1976". That said that both uses were correct; with no official translation for english. But if the 2009 revision says it is "Juan es su nombre", then that is the newest source, and is the one that should be used. As I said I was only pointing to the verifiable sources I had. If others want to challenge them or bring forth more studies to make a consensus. I am not opposed in anyway. Take care. Efiiamagus (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Climate

I suggest the second from last paragraph in the Geography section be moved to a new section called Climate. N. C. Fortune (talk)

Climate forms part of geographical study, and it is standard practice to include information about climate within a geography section, although often it is put into a subsection of its own within the geography section (particularly if the climate text is substantial). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok. Thanks for the clarification on this. N. C. Fortune (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

2012 Plebiscite

This source: http://juliorvarela.com/2011/12/28/now-that-puerto-rico-has-approved-2012-status-plebiscite-status-quo-colonial-politics-rears-ugly-head/ says that there is now just one vote, on 11/6/2012, instead of the two part vote (including 8/12) on the wiki page. What is the current status of the plebiscite? Clevell (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Updated accordingly. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Oscar L. Chapman 1950-1953 Secretary of Interior Statements

Please Include the 1950-1953 Secretary of Interior statements on the article.

"The bill (to permit Puerto Rico to write its own constitution) merely authorizes the people of Puerto Rico to adopt their own constitution and to organize a local government...The bill under consideration would not change Puerto Rico's political, social, and economic relationship to the United States."

These were the words of Oscar L. Chapman, then-secretary of the U.S. Interior, in 1950 when a bill to authorize Puerto Rico's Constitution was being debated in Congress. Fifty years after the enactment of the island's Constitution, Puerto Rico's unusual and unresolved political status is still being debated on Capitol Hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.67.223 (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

References: http://www.independencia.net/ingles/let_pr_decide. http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2002/vol6n30/LetPRDecideHow2End-en.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.67.223 (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Done.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION CALLS ON United States TO EXPEDITE PUERTO RICO’S SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS

U.N. General Assembly GA/COL/3160

Please evaluate this to be added to the article:

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION CALLS ON United States TO EXPEDITE PUERTO RICO’S SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.252.231 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this messgae.

2006-2012 Economic depression

This article should have more information about the current economic depression in Puerto Rico, which started in 2006 and it's still ongoing. ★ Nacho ★ (Contact me) ★ 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

DATA Yes, the article should include actual data about income per head, and not data from the year 2009...At present, Puerto Rican income per head at PPP has been already surpassed by Chile and Argentina in Latinamerica, and by most Eastern European nations (Slovenia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Slovakia, Poland...)--88.8.210.171 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions - Congressional Research Service

Could be updated the recent event section with the CRS Report Information?

Congressional Research Service Report

Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions

October 2, 2012

Congressional Research Service

By the way, the results of the 2012 Puerto Rican status referendum are in. It looks like a majority chose to do away with the current status, and a clear majority voted for full US Statehood. (According to El Nuevo Dia: http://resultados.puertoricodecide.com/2012/elecciones-generales/)

Your statement (whoever you are) is not completely true. As per your source, 26% of the voters left the second question blank. So, only 45% of voters chose statehood, while 55% chose other options: None of the above (26% blank ballots), Sovereign ELA (24%), Independence (4%) or expressed their disagreement with the proceeding invalidating their ballots (1%). Clearly, less than 50% of voters chose statehood.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I won't correct the edits done to the article until the count is over, but the line "Puerto Rico voted itself into statehood" is clearly misleading.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Mostly Mestizo?

In the statistics box. Where is the source for that? How can a population which was overwhelmingly white in 1900 be "overwhelmingly mestizo" when the vast majority of whites arrived in puerto rico after 1860 and the USA annexed it in the 1890s, and brought with it its anti-miscegenation laws and culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.66.76 (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


Location

The map location gives no idea where this is - wtf

If you would bother to take one second (OK, may be one and one-half seconds) to click the image and look at it in enlarged form, you should be able to figure it out, assuming you know where the North American continent is located. Cresix (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico vote for U.S. Statehood

This article must be updated in relation to the 2O12 Puerto Rico Plebiscite requesting the Statehood and rejecting the current Territorial Status.

The first question on the plebiscite asked voters whether they want to maintain the current commonwealth status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution or whether they prefer a nonterritorial option. A second question on the plebiscite had three status options: statehood, independence or free association.

The result of the 2012 referendum is that 54% of the population voted to change the territorial status quo, and 61.3% of the population voted for the statehood. Puerto Rico vote for U.S. Statehood

Puerto Rico provided a clear electoral mandate rejecting the present form of territorial status and requested to the U.S. Congress to admitted Puerto Rico to be the 51st State of the United States of America on the November 6, 2012 Plebiscite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps to actually read the article before placing comments here. It was added to the article about one day ago. Cresix (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Eventhough the Puerto Ricans have voted to make Puerto Rico the 51st state, that request must be approved by Congress before it can physically be a state. The article is currently on semi-protection (meaning only registered users can edit) but I think it should be changed to full protection cause there are going to be a lot of edit warring to this page in the next couple of months. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
26% of the voters left the second question blank, taking a political position against the options in this question of the referendum. So, actually only 45% of voters (not population) chose statehood, while 55% chose other options: None of the above (26% blank ballots), Sovereign ELA (24%), Independence (4%) or expressed their disagreement with the proceeding invalidating their ballots (1%). Clearly, less than 50% of voters chose statehood. If you look at actual count, 800,000 people voted for statehood. That's 22% of Puerto Rico's current population. You say "Puerto Rico requested to the U.S. Congress to admit Puerto Rico to be the 51st State of the United States of America." C'mon. Be serious. All these changes to the article are misleading and untrue.--Coquidragon (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Coquidragon: blank ballots (in this case, leaving the second question blank) cannot invalidate the choice that trumped among all three status choices (nor can they nullify votes cast, period: this is the case in any election). If you had an election between two candidates in a congressional district, 10 people showed up, but only three actually marked a choice on the ballot, then whichever candidate for Congress got two votes in that election would win. You can't penalize those that decided to make a democratic choice on account of those that decided not to - regardless of their reasoning. Only 38% of the voting population in the United States voted in the 2010 election: this doesn't render any of the elections that took place that year invalid.--Polisci101 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Polisci101, I agree with what you say up to a point. There is no doubt in my mind that statehood won the referendum, a valid referendum in which 78% of registered voters participated. Statehood won with 62% of the positive votes to the 2nd question. What I disagree with is the text that states that there is a clear mandate for statehood. Leaving the ballot blank in this referendum was a choice, it was the instruction given by the 2nd largest party since its status wasn't included in the 2nd question. There is a lot of politics in the why's that I don't agree with. Yet, leaving the ballot blank in this specific referendum was a vote for "I don't want any of these." Of the people who showed to vote on the referendum, only 45% voted for statehood. Although the mandate from the referendum is indeed statehood as the choice with the highest number of votes, it is not a clear mandate in as much as less than half of the voters chose it. To this, we should add that due to corruption and bad politics, Puerto Rico apathy has grown to a point where only 66% of people in voting age (I didn't know about the 38% in the US, thanks and wow!) actually showed up to vote. When only 1/4 of the population of the island chose statehood, the mandate, however valid, loses strength. I don't know if I explained myself well. I agree with the results (although they are not my preference), but not with the lecture given to them. The current governor should indeed now pursue actions in accordance with the results of the referendum, but the US government (Obama's presidency to be more specific) made it clear that it will only act after a clear mandate is given. Less than 50% of votes is not a clear mandate.--Coquidragon (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it is evident that the results can be interpreted in both ways. I propose that both ways are presented since several articles discuss both, for example this one. In addition, the PNP says statehood won, while the PPD says it did not because it got less than the 50%. It seems like a flaw in the way it was designed. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

61 % or almost 2/3 of the vote, it is a clear mandate in any Democracy! Say the contrary is not respect the Democracy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss politics, but the article. Evidently the results are controversial. This should be discussed in the article.--Ljvillanueva (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico in the 2012 Plebiscite rejected continues the Current Territorial Political Status. Puerto Rico rejected be under Congress’ plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution. This discarded the Current Commonwealth Status and any "enhancement" under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution.

Here are two Non Territorial options, Statehood or Independence (The independence is divided on two - Full Independence or Free Association Independence). Puerto Rico mandate was very clear on that first question, U.S. Congress, U.S. President initiate the Decolonization Process Now and Approve a Binding Plebiscite process.

Villanueva and Coquidragon, Do you have any question about it? Please read the following 5 reports at your convenience:

In relation of the Non Territorial Option the majority of the vote was received by the Statehood option. The decolonization process is now is on the U.S. Congress and the U.S President side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude, you are confused as to what this is. This is not the place to discuss whether one option won or what is right. This is to discuss the article. You keep adding information on what you think was the real result, which has no bearing on the article. I don't have any question about it, it is confusing and some people are saying statehood won, others are saying it didn't get majority, and others are saying it will be a mess to explain to Congress. This is what is relevant to the article, feel free to cite references that say one option is right, but you can't deny there is a controversy. None of the references have to do with the result, but with the interpretation. You might want to read this before going on.--Ljvillanueva (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Colombia vs Columbia

Why Americans can't spell Colombian, Colombia, and pre-Colombian correctly? On this article, there is a title "Pre-Columbian". The correct form is "Pre-Colombian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.66.77 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the correct spelling is "pre-Columbian", referring NOT to the nation Colombia but to the time period before Christopher COLUMBUS. Secondly, you don't know whether it was "Americans" who spelled it that way. This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia; and speakers of many languages frequently edit here. Thirdly, feel free to point out spelling errors, but drop the attacks on any nationality or groups of people. And finally, do you always spell every word perfectly? Cresix (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

While 'Free and associated state' may be the 'literal translation' of the legal name of Puerto Rico (Estado libre y asociado), why is it necessary to point that out? The translation of 'Estado Libre y Asociado' into English is simply 'Commonwealth', which is already indicated. The literal translation of 'Free and associated state' is wholly unneccessary, as this term is never applied in any way, be it speech, legal texts, contexts, written, etc. Grammarcop1 (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is important. The dichotomy between the meanings of Estado Libre Asociado and Commonwealth have been at the center of controversies for decades. Even Governor Fortuño had to educate the US Congress on the meaning of Estado Libre Asociado at one time. [2] A google search for the string "Associated Free State of Puerto Rico" returns over 3 million hits, clearly not an insignificant number. The literal translation of the term in Spanish is widely used in the literature. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
"is widely used in the literature" - can you provide some references? This is the first time I see this literal translation used. Maybe it has been used once in a while, but it is not the most used translation.--Ljvillanueva (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I also would like to see the reference. Nevertheless, I think it is unconstructive to have just a literal translation of the name without any explanation, as it could lead an uneducated reader to think of Puerto Rico as a Free Association with US, which it clearly is not. Moreover, if the explanation is given, I don't think the lede is the best place to state the complexity of Puerto Rico's status, which is what would be required of any attempt for such explanation. The Official name in English is IMHO enough, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and that is clear when it is taken into consideration that the US Government has never accepted nor use the literal translation of the name in English for Puerto Rico. Also, it will break consistency with other articles on countries that do not have a literal translations of the name in the lede, but only the official name.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Excellent retort by Coquidragon. I still agree that the literal translation is categorically unimportant. Once again, I argue that this literal translation is never used for any purpose other than a few people making the same mistake of thinking it means something. Furthermore, a Google search of 3M hits means nothing other than that there are 3M articles that may make an incorrect reference to the legal name. I also continue to argue that Wikipedia should be more along the lines of an actual fact-based approach; not one that includes unreferenced sources to literature and meaningless Google hits. The literal translation is not the legal or official name of Puerto Rico and can be found no where in any text that regards the organization of its government. Grammarcop1 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that hinting at the PR political status mess via the literal translation in the lede section takes away from the quality of the article and have removed it, also moving the accompanying source to the section in the body of the article where the literal translation of ELA de Puerto Rico was already mentioned. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Edit request on 21 December 2012

The last paragraph of the section titled Recent Developments starts "On 6 Novemeber 2011." Please change this to "On 6 November 2012" because the referendum occured the same day as the presidential election. The correct date is noted on many other of your pages, this is the only one I found to be wrong. Thank you. 174.111.113.32 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'm assuming it is Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 21:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done— Wolfgang42 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

English translation for NPP

Several of the top leaders of Puerto Rico's governing party (NPP) and its government, including Gov. Luis Fortuño, the party president, and Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock, the party's chief spokesperson on the U.S. mainland,[1][2] translate "Partido Nuevo Progresista" as "New Party for Progress", rather than "New Progressive Party". They have a point because in 1967 (year of the nationally bipartisan NPP's foundation by a Republican leader) Spanish, "progresista" referred to being in favor of "progress", while the English word "progressive" in 2012 is almost synonimous to "liberal". This, New Party for Progress is a more accurate translation of "Partido Nuevo Progresista", since the NPP is a party that includes both Republican conservatives, such as Fortuño, as well as Democratic moderates, such as McClintock and Congressman Pedro Pierluisi. —173.215.212.216 (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Associated Press articles and the San Juan Star have always referred used NPP as the preferred translation. I think for the time being continuing the use of NPP is appropriate. I agree that the translation is technically incorrect given the ideology of the party and the changes it has gone through since it began and the plurality of political views of its members, (as you mention, it has both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans on the ticket). However until there's an official decision made by the party to request that a different translation be used, the commonly accepted translation should be the one used by Wikipedia.
Actually, the New Party for Progress translation merits at least equal billing, given that both former Gov. Fortuño and former Sec. McClintock, the party's top English-language spokespeson, use it. The NPP has never asked that "New Progressive Party" be the specific translation. Thus, the NPP should not be required to issue an "official decision" requesting another translation. I've also seen it used in national media, the Wall Street Journal, if I'm not mistaken. Both translations should be free to be used. Pr4ever (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia goes by the most commonly used phrase in English-language sources. That would be the "New Progressive Party" (NPP). My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Colony or territory?

The article should use the word "colony" rather than "territory". Puerto Rico is one of five current United States colonies, along with Guam, The Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and Alaska. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.29.172 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Statehood date

When will there be official info on Puerto Rico's date of statehood?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe never. It is not a foregone conclusion that Puerto Rico will become a state. Territories don't make themselves states. The United States Congress does. Cresix (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that a process to incorporate Puerto Rico as a State has begun. First, Congress must be convinced that a clear majority of people in Puerto Rico want Statehood in order to act upon the Puerto Rican people's request. Then, they would have a lot to decide before putting their approval into a Bill, which after being signed by the President, is the only guarantee that a scheduled process has begun.

Moreover, the results of the recent referendum could be interpreted by Congress as non-conclusive or statistically-flawed since the so-called "majority" of Statehood supporters represent less than half of all people who voted. The 61.1% result (as reported by the Puerto Rico Elections Commission) does not include those who left the status question blank, effectively leaving the result ambiguous given that they did answer the first question. It was not clear if voting YES in the first question would invalidate the answer to the status question, creating a reason to leave it blank. Furthermore, the local Popular Democratic Party protested the referendum, changing its stance in mid-campaign on how its supporters should have voted. This split its base into people who voted for a "Sovereign Commonwealth" (as defined by the opposing party) and blank answers.

In short, the answer is not clear. Chris ramos pr (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Objection to phrasing of the 2013 budget

The introduction to the article states "However, partly because of criticism of the referedum's process, President Barack Obama stated in April 2013 that he will seek $2.5 million to hold another one, this time the first Puerto Rican status referendum to be financed by the Federal government".

If you click the source it only states that $2.5 million were included in his 2013 budget proposal, that does not constitute a statement by the president nor is it justified to state that the funds were due to the criticism of the referendum process. It should be edited to make that clearer otherwise it ascribes a statement to President Obama which he did not make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.215.212.216 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree the cause-effect relation is not there. Also the link is no longer existent to verify the cause-effect relationship for sure. Removed per WP:V and per WP:DUBIOUS. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Recent Developments Section

I think that the following information must be part of the Puerto Rico article, Recent developments section.

It is certainly a recent development.

On December 11th, 2012, the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico has enacted a concurrent resolution to request the President and the Congress of the United States to respond diligently and effectively, and to act on the demand of the people of Puerto Rico, as freely and democratically expressed in the plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, to end, once and for all, its current form of territorial status and to begin the process to admit Puerto Rico to the Union as a State.

Reference:The Senate and the House of Representative of Puerto Rico Concurrent Resolution requesting the end of the territorial status

It is certainly a recent development. The CIA The World Factbook Webpage background info updated on December 4, 2012 related to Puerto Rico illustrated that.

"In plebiscites held in 1967, 1993, and 1998, voters chose not to alter the existing political status with the US, but the results of a 2012 vote left open the possibility of American statehood".

Reference: Puerto Rico CIA The World Factbook Webpage

--Buzity (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we need it in this article. It would be better suited for Politics of Puerto Rico. Also, this is just a request by the prior PR government. It may amount to nothign in the new government. Joelito (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
On 2 January 2013 HERE I summarized the edit Buzity had entered on 29 December 2012 HERE with the comment that details can be found in the main article ("there is "main article" link already for the details"), namely Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012. The issue there was that, IMO, the information was redundant verbatim. In addition, there was at least one other article, 51st state, that contained at one point or another the identical information. Such level of multiple redundance, IMO, is not necessary for a detail that is not encyclopedicaly significant. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#NEWS. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
The Puerto Rico Legislature expressed through a concurrent resolution to the 113th United States Congress and the U.S. President the will of the people of the Puerto Rico democratically expressed in the plebiscite held on November 6, 2012.
It is not this a recent development that belong to this article?
--Buzity (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Buzity, no one is saying it isn't a recent development. What is being said is that it doesn't belong in this article, at least not in that level of detail. It belongs in other, more focused, articles. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Buzity, what that website (puertoricoreport.org) is calling "the will of the people of Puerto Rico" (in this new more recent edit of yours) is something that has been officially challenged by incoming Governor Garcia Padilla, among others. Also, since it still remains to be seen how the Congress will act to any new Bills (the Resolution itself is insignificant since Congress is not legally bound to do anything about it), any Wikipedia text that gives weight to either political side would be a violation of WP:NPOV. As such, I have removed some parts of your edits. BTW -and FYI- sending a Resolution to the POTUS is an exercise in futility, since the POTUS cannot override the will of Congress - just FYI. Also, note that a 61% pro-statehood vote is not a super majority vote, further corroding "the will of the people" assessment of your puertorricoreport citation. Compare Puerto Rico's 61% to the supermajority votes of both Alaska and Hawaii prior to their even being considered for statehood by Congress and you will have another reason why the Resolution you cite may not amount to nothing for the new Congress. (BTW, I am not going to engage into a political debate on what the nov 6, 2012, means or doesn't mean - this is not the place for that; I am just saying your edits are in violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.) Please re-read the note by editor Joelito above, "this is just a request by the prior PR [legislature]. It may amount to nothing in the new government", and you will have even more reasons why the edit, as you entered it, is not the best way to depict the current state of affairs. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Mercy11, I think we should add information about the August 1, 2013 Senate committee hearings concerning the referendum where Governor Garcia Padilla, Rep. Pierluisi, and Ruben Berrios gave testimony about the status of Puerto Rico and a future vote funded by the federal government. Although I know you take issue with puertoricoreport.org, they do have a good summary of the testimony that might be worthwhile to include [3]. Would that violate WP:NPOV? I think it does a good job of summarizing without giving any ideas that one opinion is better than another. I'm newer to editing Wikipedia and am still learning what's acceptable so thank you for your patience. Kimherrington (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I am all for recent development summaries, but simply because something appeared in the news recently does not make it a candidate for the Recent Developments section. It must be major news or, if not major, it must be a fair summary of a number of smaller recent developments (say in the last 6-12 months). I do object to including every single bit of news (especially when it deals with the volatile political status issue mess for they tend to viloate WP:NPOV). Such indiscriminate addition of unencyclopedic information generally violates WP:NOTNEWS. As for the Senate hearings, it would be wise to first consider more specific articles, such as Proposed political status for Puerto Rico. But even then, the same rules & policies apply. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Oppose. This is not a "recent development" that merits to be included in this article. That concurrent resolution is a non-binding resolution: it only expresses the sentiment of that particular session, not of the body -- ie: it expresses the sentiment of the 16th Legislative Assembly, not of the Legislative Assembly as a whole. For example, the current session, the 17th Legislative Assembly, has not, and will probably never pass a resolution similar to that one as it is controlled by the opposition, the Popular Democratic Party, which was not favored in the referendum. Furthermore, the resolution is not an expression of the people, it is an expression of the majority of members of particular session of the body. The Legislative Assembly has no power whatsoever to force Congress to act in a certain way. The resolution is meaningless. The referendum is not. This "development" should go into political status of Puerto Rico, proposed political status for Puerto Rico, statehood movement in Puerto Rico, or 16th Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico but not on this article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Economy of Puerto Rico

Why the fucking fuck are you guys talking about Luis Fortuño and tourism? The main industry is manufacturing, not tourism. Followed by the service industry (tertiary sector). You guys need to keep all intricate details to Economy of Puerto Rico while keeping this section very concise and general. No need to talk about Puerto Rico's history, leave that in the main Economy of Puerto Rico article. Why the fuck do we have pictures of the Milla de Oro and the Concha Resort in this section when we have a fucking pie chart of the whole economy???? Godammit. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, all the shit and crap you guys have been putting in this section has now been moved to Economy of Puerto Rico#United States rule where it should belong. Keep this section SUMMARIZED and focused on the current atmosphere. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article so excessively detailed?

It's incredible how much effort, time, and energy you guys have put in the fucking political status shit instead of focusing on arts, music, architecture, literature, media, and cuisine. Stop this madness. Summarize this shit down and go into details on the corresponding article. This article should give you a GENERAL idea of the different subjects related to Puerto Rico, not every single detail about what has happened or is expected to happen. Fucking shame on you all -- how do you consider yourselves Puerto Ricans or friends of Puerto Rico? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Official Languages

The 1902 law referenced directly (in reference 173) notes that "The "Language Law of 1902 recognized both Spanish and English as official languages and allowed for the use of either language in government transactions in all but the lowest courts." The paper by Muñiz-Argüelles does NOT say ANYTHING about a "1902 English-only language law." This is a hugely important distinction in a controversial issue and needs to be corrected IMMEDIATELY.

68.228.40.41 (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the line referring to Juan Ponce de Leon: "He was later appointed as governor of the island." to "He was later appointed and served as the first governor of the island."

There are a myriad of references for this fact including Loker, Aleck. La Florida: Spanish Exploration & Settlement of North America, 1500 to 1600. Solitude Press. pp. 21–22. ISBN 978-1928874201 as well as the Juan Ponce de Leon Wikipedia page.


Kdonley1 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Done I dropped "appointed" to simplify the sentence. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggested edit

RESOLVED
Text kept. References provided. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

In the introduction, reference is made that the indigenous Tainos disappeared due to "slavery" or "European infectious diseases." I think this inflammatory and unreferenced language should not appear in this article. Firstly, we don't know to what extent Tainos were in fact enslaved, as opposed to displaced to nearby islands, or even assimilated into the European population. Secondly, the facile accusation concerning how the Europeans infected the indigenous people of the Americas with "European" diseases has been called in to question by recent scholarship. For example, genetic and demographic studies have indicated that probably Syphilis came to Europe from the Americas, and not the other way around. And in a similar vein, although the indigenous people may have lacked adequate immunity from some diseases more prevalent in Europe (eg Smallpox), the actual extent to which these diseases contributed to a decrease in the local populations is quite unknown, and very likely to be much less than previously supposed. In fact, the estimates for the population density in the Americas, before and after Columbus, is much in question now, and such estimates may never be accurately known. Therefore, I suggest that reference to the Tainos demise, if such did occur, be couched in more NPOV terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cd195 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is documented in may sources. However, adding a couple of citations would probably be in order.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
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.

"Taino forced into slavery"

I would like to challenge the statement in the 3rd paragraph, 2nd line, that "The Taíno were forced into slavery". Could someone please come up with a reference for that, or erase it? The Spanish Laws of Burgos of 1512 explicitly forbade the maltreatment and enslavement of indigenous peoples. Later, in 1542 the "New Laws of the Indies for the Good Treatment and Preservation of the Indians expanded the first code to prevent the exploitation of the Indigenous peoples by the 'encomenderos'. Although in parts of Spanish America a semi-feudal system sometimes existed, this was far from slavery. The above statement is inaccurate.

Also, in 1898, Spain ceded the archipelago (Puerto Rico) and the Philippines to the United States, as well as Cuba, which is not mentioned. Finally, I think more should be said about Puerto Rican culture in the lead. There is no mention of it being a Spanish-speaking territory, or that its music and arts are similar to Cuba's or the Dominican Republic's. Fortis est Veritas (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the Lead says that official languages are Spanish and English, and Spanish is the primary one.Parkwells (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Parkwells, could you clarify. I do not believe languages and slavery are related here. As for Veritas, the forced into slavery thing is documented, it's just a matter of time before someone can satisfy the reference. While you are right that there were laws to protect slaves, it is also widely documented they were abused (and, for example, forced to dig out all the gold in PR to be sent to Spain). Once they were decimated by forced labor and/or disease, then Spain allowed the importation of slaves from Africa to take their place. In any event, you can add the CN template tag where a citation is needed, and I or someone will eventually statisfy the citation. Mercy11 (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I was responding to Fortis est Veritas saying: There is no mention [in the Lead] of it being a Spanish-speaking territory - note again that the Lead already refers to Spanish as the primary language in the second paragraph.Parkwells (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN (I prefer WP:PROVEIT, less legalese) -- any statement without a source may be challenged and if not referenced, removed. Mercy, you yourself freely extend yourself to remove statements which you dislike that other editors have added to "your" articles. "Fortis est Veritas" above has challenged the idea that the Taino were forced into slavery - he may remove this content from the article because it lacks a reference. This also applies to the mission of Casa Pueblo, by the way. The user who challenged/removed it is in his rights to do. Andrevan@ 03:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Well,,,, you are legalistically right in the "any statement without a source" thing. I was just giving Fortis an additional option - becuase more people read the article than read the talk pages; so a "citation needed" would get more exposure than this talk here. If Fortis (or you) want to remove the force labor thing, that's fine with me. There are some other entries in some of the articles we have both edited (Ewing comes to mind) where, like here, I don't think removal or rephrasing will take away from the article considerably, what do you think? Mercy11 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Ewing has a source. Andrevan@ 04:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Dude, this is like a very well known piece of history. I mean, it is undisputed by all historians. Just because a mandate existed doesn't mean that slavery didn't exist. We have laws against drugs and people still use them. We have laws against slavery and we still have sex slaves around the world. Here's the reference you are looking for, from PBS:

The first repartimiento in Puerto Rico is established, allowing colonists fixed numbers of Tainos for wage-free and forced labor in the gold mines. When several priests protest, the crown requires Spaniards to pay native laborers and to teach them the Christian religion; the colonists continue to treat the natives as slaves.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

More, from a book by Dr. Mary Hilaire Tavenner:

The Taíno people living there at the time, numbering perhaps 20 and 30,000, were forced into slavery.

Source: [4]
You could have done a simple Google search for this...
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not the responsibility of the person challenging an unreferenced detail to find a reference to it. It's the responsibility of the person adding the detail. Andrevan@ 20:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That's not true, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, a policy, editors should "fix problems if [they] can". They are also encouraged to do "a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself". This is an issue that could have been resolved pretty easily if any of you would have done a simple search on Google. Remember to WP:AGF. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I did not research this heavily but I did do the cursory diligence, and the original user's claims about Spanish law seemed to check out. I don't know what that implies about the statements that there was slavery in apparently reliable sources, but regardless. Per the verifiability policy, which is probably the most important content policy on the project along with foundations like NPOV, AGF, IAR, NPA, etc. Wikipedia:PROVEIT#Burden of evidence, "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Therefore both my removal and the subsequent restoration of the material with reliable sources were in keeping with policy, as was the original user's challenge of the material. The reason why I removed the material based on the original user's information was to illustrate to a red user-paged user that BOLD is another foundational policy which Mercy11's protective editing is violating. Andrevan@ 05:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rico name origin?

RESOLVED
Added text that explained the origin of the name. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

The article does not explain the origins of the name "Puerto Rico", just that for unspecified reasons that name was eventually applied to the entire island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.192.26 (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:29, 26 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.

Demonym

Why was the Demonym removed? Demonyms for other countries, territories, states, provinces, and cities appear on their pages. Why not Puerto Rico? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.46.101.146 (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. Mercy11 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

MISSING FACTS

NO ACTION
According to the Library of Congress, the United States paid $20M for the Phillippines only. Puerto Rico and Guam were ceded. See [5] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

Spain sold Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines to the United States for 20 million dollars and gave Cuba as a war loot. This fact has been omitted from your article and it should be included. There are book in congress that support this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.141.41 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2014 (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.

Territorial Status - Edit Request

As of Consejo de Salud v. Rullan, 586 F.Supp. 2d 22 (D.P.R. 2008), Puerto Rico is no longer an unincorporated territory. Judge Gustavo Gelpi held that the historical federal attitude towards Puerto Rico after its organization as a Commonwealth was an example of a gradual incorporation of Puerto Rico into the rest of the country, meaning it could no longer be considered unincorporated. Furthermore, the court declared the separation of territories into separate and unequal a form of political apartheid that could not be legally supported, for which it is unconstitutional. The case was not reviewed nor has it been revoked in any further case by the District Court of Puerto Rico, nor any higher court.

Given the above, I would like to being a discussion on changing Puerto Rico's status in Wikipedia from unincorporated territory to incorporated territory. 64.237.234.231 (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

☒N Not done and not likely to be done. I understand your point, but reality is that while Judge Gustavo Gelpi considered Puerto Rico an incorporated territory, he didn't declare it as such. As of January 24, 2014, however, the United States General Services Administration considers Puerto Rico to be "an unincorporated territory of the United States" (see [6]). Typically it is the Supreme Court of the United States the one who declares wether a territory is incorporated or unincorporated. As of this writing, the Supreme Court has declared that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory through the Insular Cases. Judge Gustavo Gelpi cannot and doesn't have the power nor the authority to overturn the Supreme Court. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

While I do appreciate your prompt response, I am not necessarily asking for an immediate change, rather a debate among the community to create consensus on whether it should or should not be changed. Additionally, your distinction between whether Judge Gelpi "considered" or "declared" Puerto Rico an incorporated territory is mere semantics, as Rullan's main holding was Puerto Rico's status as an incorporated state. Furthermore, your pronouncement of SCOTUS as the only person who may declare Puerto Rico incorporated or not is also an unconstitutional supposition. The Territorial Clause grants Congress and not the judiciary power over territorial matters. Lastly, with regards to the GSA and its declarations, they also go against what was previously shown in the proceedings of U.S.A. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al., No. 3:12-cv-2039 (D.P.R. July 7, 2013) and the actions of the DoJ therein. In said case, the DoJ had initially filed a complaint in which it stated that Puerto Rico was an unincorporated territory, Complaint, U.S.A. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al., 3:12-cv-2039 (Dec. 21, 2012) ECF No. 1. Judge Gelpi thus issued an order requiring the DoJ to elaborate on its earlier statement of Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory. Order, U.S.A. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al., 3:12-cv-2039(D.P.R. January 3, 2013) ECF No. 9. In response, the DoJ dropped the phrase unincorporated territory from the complaint. Amended Complaint, U.S.A. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al., 3:12-cv-2039 (D.P.R. January 18, 2013) ECF No. 10. Additionally, this goes along with George H.W. Bush's Memorandum on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, in which he ordered federal agencies, the GSA being one, to treat Puerto Rico as if it were a state to the extent where it would be constitutionally permissible. If that is not an example of integration into the Union, I don't know what is. As you can see from these developments, the waters are rather muddy and it is hard to see whether Puerto Rico is (un)incorporated, which is why I want to hold this debate and establish consensus before summarily dismissing either argument. 64.237.234.231 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Judges and courts interpret the law. The higher most court of the United States, SCOTUS, has interpreted that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory. If DOJ, Gelpi, a lesser court, an executive federal agency, or an executive federal officer are interpreting it differently, their interpretations do not go above SCOTUS. SCOTUS interpretation stands above all else until Congress establishes it so differently. So far Congress has decided to align with SCOTUS by not enacting a law that establishes Puerto Rico as something different. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Although the highest court does have supremacy in matters of legal interpretation, that still does not completely deny a lower courts own interpretation of the law at hand. Distinguishing a case from another would allow said lower courts greater flexibility in the application of precedent, which is exactly what was done in the original case. Under said practice, the lower courts are allowed to interpret the facts of a case to be different enough from those in the precedent that the latter should not apply.With regards to Congress, if you read the very same judgment, you would see that it interprets Congress's later legal actions, following the approval of the territorial constitution, as signalling incorporation. Your claim of Congress aligning with SCOTUS is also contested by said opinion. As you can see, these uncertainties and our intransigence force us to open this debate to the general community.64.237.234.231 (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @IP.231: I agree with your premise. A couple of points.
  • Gelpi makes clear he does nothing to alter the holding of the Insular Cases which enable a domestic sugar cartel, that is, unincorporated for the purposes of discriminatory tax regime on the island territories growing sugar. But all constitutional protections of states have never applied to territories until statehood.
  • But courts have not determined citizenship in English speaking countries for over one-hundred years. It is the province of Congress, just as it has been since before the Constitution at the Northwest Ordinance. Indeed the Insular Cases assert that citizenship is not for courts, but for Congress to determine -- which Congress has.
  • Gelpi observes that Congress has incorporated Puerto Rico into the United States in the same way it had for previous territories, and indeed, Puerto Rico and the other ‘big five’ insular territories have more privileges and wider citizenship today than either incorporated Hawaii Territory or Alaska Territory in the 20th century.
  • This process includes mutual U.S. citizenship in the modern era, fundamental protections under federal courts, self-determiniation in three-branch territorial government, a constitution approved by local legislature and referendum, U.S. Organic Act making the territory organic to the United States, and territorial representation in Congress by the two-hundred year practice of the U.S. federal republic.
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • We are not here to interpret the law. Wikipedia is not a court. We are here to decide what we put in an article based on reliable sources. As of today, we have three reliable sources:
  1. SCOTUS declaring that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory
  2. GSA considering Puerto Rico an unincorporated territory
  3. A lower court distinguishing a case and as a by product interpreting that Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory
We have one and only one source claiming that Puerto Rico is incorporated but many others claiming it is unincorporated. What do we do in cases like this? We go with what the vast majority of sources establish, but we make a note that explains what another reliable source says. So, something like, "SCOTUS has declared Puerto Rico to be unincorporated and many other agencies have considered as such, but in 2008 a federal lower court judge interpreted it in this particular way." That will satisfy your concern.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand the law. The SCOTUS declared and GSA acknowledges the discriminatory tax regime for the island territories for that limited purpose; they do not refer to citizenship and political incorporation. Let's to go to reliable scholarly sources, linked references to U.S. Code and Presidential Executive Orders.
  1. Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p.1175]
  2. ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [(36) p.23]. 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality.
  3. Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands."
That is, the wording could be "Puerto Rico is politically incorporated in the United States as a territory, but it is held as unincorporated by the Supreme Court for purposes of a discriminatory tax regime, “foreign in a domestic sense” for internal taxes." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Can you WP:BEBOLD and make the proper change referenced with these reliable sources you have linked to? Can you also add the sentence, "for most intent and purposes, the federal government of the United States treats Puerto Rico as if it were a state." —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that is quite what it says in Consejo de Salud v. Rullan, 586 F.Supp. 2d 22 (D.P.R. 2008). A territory does not get all privileges of a state until statehood, even after it is politically incorporated as a territory, so I would have to find the quote in Lawson and Sloane to support "as a state for most intent and purposes"..., but I'll certainly give their articles a read-through to see if there are grounds for that wider assertion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
So we can say "Puerto Rico is a politically incorporated territory "as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art". (Lawson and Sloane, BCLR 2009, p.1175) For example, for the purposes of citizenship, Puerto Rico is respected to the same extent as though it were a state. (48 U.S. CODE § 737)." --- But I am sure there is a better way of phrasing that...I hope by tomorrow... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree with your opinion @TheVirginiaHistorian.
  1. Lawson and Sloane are simply publishing their view of the opinion by Federal District Justice Gustavo Gelpi; they are not changing (nor can they) the political status of Puerto Rico. They even use the word "seems"; you appear ready to change their "seems" into an "is". We cannot do that as editors. Reason: WP:OR. Breaking news is great, but it is not great if they get published here before they are published by RS.
  2. GPO at 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality doesn't prove anything. It is simply defining --for purposes of that one particular publication only-- that the word "state" should be taken to mean the 50 states, DC, PR, Guan, VI, CNMI. Any reasonably prudent reader would then know that the publication isn't going to repeat "the 50 states, DC, PR, Guan, VI, CNMI" each and every time that such scenario come up in their publication.
  3. Executive Order 13423, isn't redefining Puerto Rico as an incorporated territory either; it is simoply stating what has been stated repeatedly since 1922 in Balzac v. Porto Rico, namely, (in layman's terms) that Puerto Rico is geographically part of the US but politically it is not, or (in more legal terms) that Puerto Rico is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States".
There is nothing new in any of those 3 publications your pointed to -- or in the Columbia Law Review (pages 821-824 in THIS 2010 publication) -- or any of the other various WP:RS that have covered the Consejo de Salud ruling.
While a side note might be appropriate regarding this matter, in the Puerto Rico article any such entry would be, IMO, Undue weight. It would be more appropriate for the Political status of Puerto Rico article. And this matter was already discussed before THERE. The resolution was that text would be added to the Political status of Puerto Rico article incorporating the Consejo de Salud decision (and that was done to). Since no new rulings have occured in the last 3 years since this matter was last discusssed, I fail to see how any changes are warranted.
I agree with @Ahnoneemoos 's initial statement that Puerto Rico has not been declared an incorporated territory by any authority - not the SCOTUS, not by Congress, not by GPO, not by Gelpi. As such, no changes should be made in the Puerto Rico article. Mercy11 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your fairminded suggestion for a sidenote. The question remains, which element of the controversy gets the sidenote. Gelpi observed Congress had made Puerto Rico incorporated into the Union. Consejo de Salud v. Rullan, “Supreme Court jurisprudence treating Puerto Rico disparately from States premised on the Insular Cases doctrine is anachronistic and, thus, no longer applicable… [the Congress’] sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory. … the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one.” There is something new to show the political incorporation of Puerto Rico in Lawson and Sloane in the reliable source, Boston College Law Review, 2009, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p.1175] That is somewhat contrary to the Columbia Law article, which I take it has greater prestige.
I found the two-year old discussion from your link, and I think the "change of status" request of IP above to be over-reach based on your discussion there. However, here in the introduction, where Puerto Rico is identified as "unincorporated", a note should read in language similar to that discussed before,
"Note text: In a 2008 case, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory".citation.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you need to understand that was something done by a lower court; an interpretation. That's why I'm so adamant to write something that states that Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory. For example, from that very own opinion Gelpi states that:

The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories — only the Supreme Court can.

He even explains that:

[...] Congress has never enacted any affirmative language such as “Puerto Rico is hereby an incorporated territory” [...]

So we need to be very very careful in how we write these incongruences down. That's why I liked your suggestion: it doesn't state that Puerto Rico is something, it simply says: "well this people say this while this other people say that."

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, Puerto Rico is "unincorporated" ONLY in the matter of the revenue clause of the Constitution,

We are therefore of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution; that the Foraker act is constitutional, so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island, and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case.

DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) which is why, from one point of view, it is the "unincorporation" which should be subordinate to the "incorporation" of Puerto Rico by Organic Act, the judicial chapter of the U.S. code, citizenship, geographical expanse, and other items which pertain to a general readership versus the arcane legal "term of art" which applied in the Insular Cases. Mercy11?TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian, you are, I am afraid, bordering on WP:OR via WP:SYN. We are just not allowed to go that far. You will have to come up with several sources that directly state that Puerto Rico is now an incorporated territory. Looking like incorporated, seeming like incorporated, even smelling like incorporated, just isn't the same as having been declared incorporated by the authority that counts, the one under whose direct jurisdiction Puerto Rico operates: the U.S. Congress. It would make a dent if it had been declared incorporated at least by the United States Supreme Court, but I haven't read that yet. Trust me, I am making an effort to see things from your perspective, but I just cannot support your arguments. Too close to a WP:OR violation. Mercy11 (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Puerto Rico is declared unincorporated relative to the revenue clause of the Constitution, but no other. It is not declared unincorporated for any other purpose, and there are many other clauses in the Constitution which do apply. Indeed, in the Organic Act of Puerto Rico which makes Puerto Rico organically a part of the U.S., it declares Organic act of Puerto Rico Title 48 Territories and Insular Possessions, section 731, Puerto Rico, p. 387-8. Puerto Rico belongs to the United States, the islands’ future status [may be any] that are not incompatible with the Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States.”
It is not my research but the research of a reliable source, a sitting U.S. District judge who has done the research, and Gelpi observed Congress had made Puerto Rico incorporated into the Union at Consejo de Salud v. Rullan. You may not like his research, but you have supplied no counter source but your own original interpretation of primary sources.
We know from a reliable source in Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, p.1175 that incorporated is a "term of art" in modern jurisprudence. And “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory”, and not merely an example of an incorporated territory. That is, Puerto Rico is more emphatically incorporated, not less so. In any case, you offer no counter-source.
For the purposes of a general reader, we have at Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, ... Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas." Have you a counter source on your part, besides an editor discussion of primary documents at a WP talk page two years ago? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
You make a very eloquent case. Unfortunately, you are a victim of your own reasoning: if you had any legal base to stand on, the SCOTUS would had already reached your conclusions and declared Puerto Rico an incorporated territory, but we all know that is not the case. Not to repeat myself ad nauseum but, sorry, I disagree with your conclusions - adding your suggested text would be a violation of WP:SYN. (I am not going to engage you in your challenge; per WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof is on you.) Wikipedia's WP:OR policy is very straight-forward; I would suggest you re-read it in its entirety from a neutral point of view. To recap, I would oppose any mention of the Gelpi, etc., opinion in this article as WP:Undue weight, but I think a one-sentence entry would be appropriate in Political status of Puerto Rico. In fact, I think several statements in Political status of Puerto Rico that revolve around the Gelpi decision are also appropriate there. But the fact is that such thing has already been done HERE. So IMO, in effect, there is nothing more to be done. Mercy11 (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
That is, there is no reliable source in the 21st century to assert Puerto Rico is unincorporated for anything but the revenue clause of one-hundred years ago. And you without sources would on your own interpretation extend that narrow interpretation to citizenship, due process, the fundamental provisions of the Constitution which have applied to incorporated U.S. territories for two hundred years. You slip into the fallacy that Puerto Rico cannot be considered incorporated unless all constitutional provisions applying to a state apply to the territory. That is not historically how it works. All privileges of states apply only at statehood.
No case comes before the Supreme Court on the subject of incorporation unless the Congressionally enacted political incorporation is found to be directly harmful to a person in Puerto Rico. There is no harm done under the present regime, so there is no Supreme Court case for you. On the other hand, since Puerto Rico is not politically unincorporated, there is no case that can be brought from harm done by unincorporation by any individual in Puerto Rico. So there is no Supreme Court case for you. Right wing fringe is constantly saying the Supreme Court simply makes declarations as a Papal Bull, but it just not so. You are wrong to reason that without a declaration from the Supreme Court out of thin air, Congress is incompetent. It is rather, the Supreme Court has determined it is to defer in political matters that are to be left to Congress.
I have provided research from a sitting federal judge, two legal scholars, and a homeland department publication for general readership. You say the burden is on my sources, and you need offer no counter-sources because I can just be argued down by wikilinks. But a source-based online encyclopedia requires sources, and modern era Puerto Rico "unincorporated" has no reliable support for a general readership. The article should report that reliable sources show Puerto Rico "incorporated" as the term is generally understood, and as a legal term of art, but it is still as a territory "unincorporated" for the limited arcane purposes of the Constitution's revenue clause. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion, RfC, DRN

I think the preferred sequence is thirdopinion or RfC then DRN...would you care to craft a neutral statement of the controversy before we determine where to take it, since you seem the most adamant on "incorporated" ---
--- and I can agree to a) statement of PR as "incorporated" in the modern era or b) a statement of PR both incorporated for most purposes, with it considered unincorporated for revenue clause purposes, or c) a statement of PR as technically unincorporated for revenue purposes per SCOTUS, with it generally considered currently incorporated for political purposes per Congress Organic Act, scholars, and common usage in government publications. I thought Mercy11 was hinting at c), --- then that was withdrawn somehow in unsourced discussion about an imagined SCOTUS holding.
We seem agreed that some addition/change to this article is supported by sources to describe PR as "incorporated" in the modern era for the general reader, and there are no counter sources put forward to make Puerto Rico solely "unincorporated" in all matters. Please try a first draft of describing the controversy, would you? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
TheVirginiaHistorian, it is not up to Ahnoneemoos to draft anything as it is you who have been pushing the issue. Third opinion (well, you're getting one) is that what you are suggesting is WP:OR. This is a serious issue of interpreting the federal laws of a nation-state. As regards the other options, you would need to present an extremely compelling case for the Wikipedian community to set a precedent. Personally, I'd suggest this will be greeted as WP:SNOW. As an addendum, please familiarise yourself with WP:POINTy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, it is not for you to discourage collaboration between like-minded editors seeking to improve an article based on reliable sources in the face of opposition without sources. 64.237.234.231, Ahnoneemoos and TVH have contributed sources to this discussion. Anon.231 suggested discussion, Ahnoneemoos brought up DRN. No sources say, "in the modern era, Puerto Rico is unincorporated by citizenship and its constitution." Sources do say Puerto Rico is "incorporated" in the modern era, and that it is a part of the U.S., listed along with 50 states and DC. That is not my interpretation of primary documents in original research. I do not conclude by synthesis "incorporation", "incorporation" is used in reliable source direct quotations.

In this case some editors would like to take an arcane SCOTUS holding one-hundred years ago for temporary governance not applying the revenue clause to a territory (see Gelpi's research), to the exclusion of the common sense use of the political incorporation which Congress is allowed in its political domain. At WP:SNOW "editors are encouraged to exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior" -- here pointy, bureaucratic behavior is inflicting unnecessarily technical legalese, a "term of art", on the general reader by those who would deny the scholarly research supporting "incorporation" of modern day Puerto Rico.

In this case of discussion, the rule being applied is that all assertions should be supported by a reliable source. In the "serious issue of interpreting the federal laws of a nation-state", we should use the research sources of a sitting federal district judge, two legal scholars, and the general language of a Homeland department pamphlet welcoming second language immigrants to the U.S. We should not use the POV of editors who will not provide counter-sources.

Editors who object to the application of the wp:reliable source guidelines are in this case are wp:pointy, "frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof". In this case, insisting on interpreting primary documents without scholarship support is meant to discredit the use of reliable sources. Based on editors wed to wp:pointy for consistency across articles, the Infobox might remain unchanged as "unincorporated" in a collegial compromise. Nevertheless, --- the narrative at Puerto Rico should report that Puerto Rico is politically incorporated in the modern era, but it is still "unincorporated" for the Revenue Clause as it was one-hundred years ago. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources. Gelpi got a mention by Fordham U (but w/ Burnett for contrast slash balance). Other sources I found say unincorporated is still correct.
sources , including a couple modern ones which go into some depth
Note: An Unsatisfactory Case of Self-Determination: Resolving Puerto Rico's Political Status (( paywall sorry ))
by Lani E. Medina, February 2010, Fordham International Law Journal, 33 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1048.
Copyright (c) 2010 Fordham University School of Law. (Copyright © 2014 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc.)
"Gelpi, U.S. District Court Judge for District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, recently concluded that Puerto Rico is an incorporated
territory of the United States even without any affirmative language from the U.S. Congress to that effect.[7]
'...sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory.'[8]
...legal historian Christina Duffy Burnett explains, Puerto Rico "still has not been "incorporated' into the United States in a constitutional sense."[9]
In other words, the island remains an unincorporated U.S. territory over which the U.S. Congress has plenary power.[10]
2012-02-17, by Guest Columnist Pedro Pierluisi, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, representing the territory in the US House of Representatives
© JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.
This article was prepared for publication by JURIST's professional commentary editorial staff.
Opinions expressed in JURIST's Hotline are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, or the University of Pittsburgh.

In Downes (1901), the Court held that Puerto Rico had been acquired by the US but not "incorporated" as part of the US. Thus, the Court conceived — out of thin air, critics have charged — a binary world of "incorporated" and "unincorporated" territories. ...In 1917, the federal government extended US citizenship to residents of Puerto Rico in the Jones-Shafroth Act. In Balzac (1922), however, the Court held that the grant of citizenship in the Jones Act did not demonstrate intent by Congress to incorporate Puerto Rico ... the Insular Cases made clear that Puerto Rico's judicially-created status as an unincorporated territory could last indefinitely. ...1947 ...1950 ...1952.... Nevertheless, these measures have not altered Puerto Rico's fundamental status. Rather, the island remains an unincorporated territory of the US, subject to Congress's plenary power under the Territory Clause. ...Puerto Rico's constitutional convention resolved that the English-language name of the polity would be the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico." As federal authorities have emphasized, this term — Commonwealth — "does not describe or provide for any specific political status or relationship." ... For over a century, resolution of Puerto Rico's status question has proven elusive. (( emphasis added ))

Uppsala Conflict Data Program, Uppsala University (Department of Peace and Conflict Research)
"Puerto Rico is a self-governing unincorporated territory of the United States. ...
The 1952 Constitution gave Puerto Rico its current political status as a self-governing unincorporated territory of the United States with Commonwealth status.
Several referenda have been held, in which the Puerto Rican voters have chosen not to alter the existing political status." (( emphasis added ))
"...in 1898, Puerto Rico became an unincorporated territory of the United States of America ;
in 1917, the U.S. Congress granted Puerto Ricans American citizenship.
In 1952 established its own government for local affairs.
The Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico consists of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches."
"...for Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the United States..."
"...The finances of Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the US, are considered weaker than those of any US state because of its budget deficit..."
6/13/2013 @ 2:34PM Giovanni Rodriguez, Forbes Contributor
"In 1918 – 20 years after Puerto Rico became an unincorporated territory of the United States..."
'Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting.'
Called Out comment by PRcharlie == "Puerto Rico is not an incorporated territory of the U.S. The Island is actually an unincorporated territory."
Author comment by Giovanni Rodriguez == "Thanks for catching that! Typo. Now corrected"
WP:RS...? Also interesting, and mentions some Senate bill in the 1990s which attempted to make PR incorporated (did not pass?)
However, although the information is apparently from a newspaper, I couldn't tell if it was from a column (implied) or from a letter-to-the-editor-type-thing.
Dependency status: unincorporated, organized territory of the US with commonwealth status
My main find was a 2012 source which explicitly says that the 1917/1922 and 1947/1950/1952 events do not alter unincorporated status. However, there was also a good long paragraph about asymmetric taxation in the Jurist source, as well, which might be usable to back up VirginiaHistorian's stance on the reason the unincorporated concept was used (and then continued). Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I concede your main find, PR is "unincorporated" for the revenue clause and jury trial for misdemeanors, as sourced. The point is to contribute the "incorporated" status as sourced in reliable scholarly publication, without losing the way in which PR is still unincorporated in the article narrative. It is not one-or-the-other, although some seem to be blind to the political character of Congress, and the federal court's deference to it in its proper sphere. Puerto Ricans are mutually made U.S. citizens in the modern era by Congress and the Puerto Rican Constitution without jurisprudence, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN

At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Puerto Rico TFD has taken up a discussion with me without a volunteer opening a thread, although I thought that when Guy Macon modified Ahnoneemoos message on my Talk page, that meant it was okay to continue. But now the top of the DRN page says "Puerto Rico" needs attention by a volunteer. My sincere apologies if I started up too early. Sorry, Ahnoneemoos. How can the DRN be better publicized? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In this edit I was just fixing the link after fixing the title at DRN (if you list Talk:Puerto Rico instead of Puerto Rico the pagelinks don't work.) Not a problem, and nobody did anything wrong -- it is just something the DRN bot needs and is easy to fix.
Because of medical issues I can't handle any DRN cases for a while -- I might disappear in the middle of the discussion -- so I can't comment on anything other than the title fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Good health. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Oldest surviving colony"

“Puerto Rico is often considered to be the world's oldest surviving colony.” was recently added to the article by Seqqis without a source. The infobox has Puerto Rico as a Commonwealth and organized unincorporated territory. But colony must be distinct from the home territory of the sovereign, and PR has many attributes of incorporation, including full birthright citizenship as "native-Americans", free travel into the United States and territorial representation in Congress which a colony would not have.

District of Columbia considered itself “the last colony” of the United States until it received home rule equivalent to the three branch self-government Puerto Rico enjoys. The slogan appeared on DC license plates until home rule passed.

Whereas British Virgin Islands for instance, has U.K. citizenship in the 21st century, but no representation in Parliament, and an unelected Royal Governor appointed by the Queen. Until there is a discussion of Puerto Rican status in the article, one side of the controversy should not be mentioned in the introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The addition fails WP:LEDE. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Can the existence of the PR status controversy be admitted to the article?

NO ACTION
(non-admin closure; under WP:ANRFC) Overwhelming consensus is not to include the suggested text on the lead. Requestor is reminded that he may still include such text somewhere else in the article as long as it adheres to WP:NPOV, presents differing point of views with WP:DUEWEIGHT, and provides reliable sources to back up the text. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

Should the Puerto Rico article introduction include reference to the PR status controversy,

“While government sources list Puerto Rico as an "unincorporated" territory, it has also been referred to as "incorporated" into the United States during scholarly disputes over Puerto Rican status.”[note]

[note] The existence of a scholarly controversy over the status of Puerto Rico is sourced at Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p. 17, and an element of the controversy stating Puerto Rico is “incorporated” is found at Boston College Law Review, p.1175. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support Addition of sourced information on the topic improves the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:UNDUE, WP:OR (see further comments in 'threaded discussion' below). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think that the concern presented at the DRN was really attended. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per WP:UNDUE, the Puerto Rico article is a general information article. Opinions of nonconformists such as Lawson & Sloane above belong in Proposed political status for Puerto Rico, if at all. As the discussion at the DNR on this subject showed ([7]; subsequently archived HERE), as well as on this herein Talk Page ([8]) there is no support, other than from an anonymopus IP, to add the proposed change. Mercy11 (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As noted by Mercy11 above, there is already a specific page for this material: Proposed political status for Puerto Rico. That is where it belongs. Not on this page. Sarason (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A discussion of this nature will lead us into a never ending debate. This would be similar to a discussion where people would try to determine which is the true religion. Is Puerto Rico an "incorporated" or an "unincorporated" territory? As far as I am concerned it is "unincorporated" and it will remain so until someone presents an official document from the United States Government which states otherwise. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Addition of sourced information on the topic does not significantly improve the article or its readibility. On the contrary, it will spiral this debate into a never ending hole, which is not kosher for a general information article. The concern at the DRN was properly attended, but the problem lies with a few editors like theVirginiaHistorian who seem to oppose any kind of consensus to close the issue. The seperate page has been mentioned, but there is no precedent by which this should not be included on this page as well, especially since it is very much connected with Puerto Rico, and deserves mention. I believe the article will be incomplete, lopsided and very misleading if opinions of Lawson and Sloane are excluded over and given their due importance. Thank you. Sonarclawz (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are very few sources that say Puerto Rico has been incorporated in law into the United States, so it would be undue. TFD (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - To include the "opinions" of Lawson and Sloane would be misleading and would be confusing in itself. Opinions are POV regardless of the fact that such POV's can be cited in published works. An article such as this in Wikipedia should and must cite true facts. As I stated before, the only way that we can even consider posting the word "incorporated" would be by posting and citing an official document from the United States Government which states what the status and relationship between the US and Puerto Rico truly is. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems pointless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Others have made the case. Next time do Wikipedia the right way. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – For the same reasons expressed by others. United States Man (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • This language is an attempt to incorporate previous objections to mentioning that there is an ongoing scholarly dispute over the status of Puerto Rico which has developed over recent years. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a general information article about Puerto Rico. The main articles relevant to your interests already exist in the form of Political status of Puerto Rico and Proposed political status for Puerto Rico. Rather than follow good practices for talk pages (the most salient being at least a modicum of an attempt to be concise), the methodology employed in order to achieve the end you want is a weighty, elephant in the room strategy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In the DRN you stated that "the existence of a controversy regarding Puerto Rico's status is not speculative nor my interpretation...", however, the reference that was provided remains interpretative and does not deal with the actual issue. That being that there is no *official* document issued, or concrete action taken, by those with the power to determine the current status (SC & Congress). Without any solid reference from either one, I can't support the addition of marginal theories. There are several books where different authors debate the validity of the Treaty of Paris and request independence based on its perceived deceit; argue that the Commonwealth is not a territory and is actually a "form of association based on a bilateral pact"; there was even an author that campaigned to make PR a state while keeping the "Commonwealth" cognomen, noting that "Commonwealth" only represented the "name of the government" and not the status... Even the most farfetched of these would be considered "scholarly controversy" simply due to being included in (or serving as basis for) published works, some of which were authored by versed attorneys. The prose does not reflect those, well documented, interpretations because they are nothing more that opinions. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that -even among those directly involved in the status controversy- the possibility that Puerto Rico could be incorporated is rarely, if ever, debated in Puerto Rican politics. Due to that, I would question if it even belongs in the subpages. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Factual error Mercy 11 claimed, "As the discussion at the DNR on this subject showed ([1]), as well as on this herein Talk Page ([2]) there is no support, other than from an anonymopus IP, to add the proposed change." But Gwillhickers, Ahnoneemoos and TheVirginiaHistorian supported "unincorporated" and noted scholarly controversy for "incorporated" as sourced. The unreasonable IP sought a wholesale change to the page without considering both sides of the controversy, or the preponderance of online sources for "unincorporated" which most editors supported. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers and @Ahnoneemoos can voice their own opinions here themselves, right? Let's given them some time to do so as this RfC is not even 24 hrs old. IAE, the DNR (as it also the underlining at this RfC) was not just to change "unincorporated" to "incorporated". It is also to make the changes (1) in the Puerto Rico article only, and (2) in its lede section only. Those are 3 distinct change stipulations. I am not so sure that, other than the anonymous IP, there was any support for that. Mercy11 (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Please read the RfC carefully, it includes a viewpoint as you expressed it at the time both at Talk and in the DRN. Puerto Rico is "unincorporated" in government sources, -- and, the proposed text adds, it is also reported as "incorporated" in scholarly disputes. --- "in scholarly disputes" is a pretty modest phrasing, and it is sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I have re-read it. There is nothing in the RfC that I agree with, and that should had been obvious from my "Oppose" vote. The reason is that it proposes the words be added (1) to the Puerto Rico article and (2) to the article's LEDE section, and these reasons should be obvious from my statement above. I hope this makes my viewpoint clear now. Mercy11 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Iryna Harpy, Caribbean H.Q. and Mercy11. Thank you for the fair hearing. I may be slow, but I am not malicious. --- See if I now can properly follow WP article structure. First, a) The introduction is to summarize the article, b) the notion of "incorporated" is not treated in the article proper, so c) it cannot be admitted there. Second, there is no true consensus in the community to treat the status of PR as "incorporated" anywhere in the summary PR article, so the information is not lost, it is placed in a subsidiary article, Political status of Puerto Rico or Proposed political status for Puerto Rico. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that the number of sources that say Puerto Rico has been incorporated is overstated. The only source is a Puerto Rican judge who made those comments in a decision, but the comments had nothing to do with deciding the case before him, and conflict with what the Supreme Court decided in the insular cases. Otherwise, the sources merely claim that Puerto Rico is treated as part of the U.S. in some senses. (So by the way is Guantanamo Bay, which is legally part of Cuba.) But that is already explained in the article. TFD (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
You miss my new point. There is a scholarly controversy over the status of PR as sourced in a reliable publication by Duke University Press and confirmed at wp:reliable sources/noticeboard. But as Mercy11, Iryna Harpy, Caribbean H.Q and Tony the Marine, all patiently explained to me, "incorporated" does not belong in the introduction of a general article Puerto Rico which does not address "incorporated" in the body of its text. That political information is found in Political status of Puerto Rico or Proposed political status for Puerto Rico. I was wrong to propose placing information in an introduction which is not discussed in the body of the article. That is WP policy in the Manual of Style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Forgive me for interrupting this, but the reverse is true. The United States assumed control of the island after the Spanish-American War, while in 1917 President Wilson proposed the Jones-Shafroth Act, which granted Puerto Ricans U.S. Citizenship with a number of crucial distinctions. Because the island is an “incorporated territory” rather than a state, all Constitutional rights are available to residents. this should be enough to support the inclusion of the given passages in the article with all reliable sources included. Sonarclawz (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Puerto Rico is unincorporated and incorporated. PR in the post WWII era begins its history with the Constitution of 1952. There, mutual citizenship is agreed to in a way which could be recognized by the United Nations. The earlier WWI action of one-sided Congressional "granting" of citizenship is superseded. As to provisions such as citizenship or due process, PR is incorporated as previous territories have been.
But the Insular Cases establish that Puerto Rico is "unincorporated" regarding the Revenue Clause of the Constitution, and so a discriminatory tax regime is imposed on Puerto Rico which would otherwise be unconstitutional were it a state, and this can be allowed by Congress until PR is a state. --- Until treatment of "incorporated" is introduced to the article, I now believe it does not belong in the introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Cheers for the acknowledgement, TheVirginiaHistorian. This is where WP:UNDUE comes into play in the balanced treatment of an article. While it can be understood that you were trying to introduce something which is undeniably a point of interest in good faith (as opposed to an intentional WP:TROJAN), once introduced, it becomes the stuff of WP:Coatrack. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Historian, you seem to be hung up on your relentless "Puerto Rico is declared unincorporated relative to the revenue clause of the Constitution, but no other" ideology. Whether the territory becomes incorporated is something that is done via an Act of Congress and that occurs globally for all articles of the Constitution and in one shot, not piecemeal, as you are suggesting. A territory is either incorporated or unincorporated; there is no in-limbo state in between. And there is no option to be both at the same time. Or even one or the other depending on the circumstances. What there is, is "unincorporation with varying degrees", if you will, of applicability of the Constitution - but that's nothing new. An even if it was unincorporated with full applicability of all articles of the Constitution except for the Revenue Clause (or whatever other single Clause) that doesn't make it incorporated - it is still unincorporated. That is, incorporation defines the political status of a territory; you don't find anywhere in the US Constitution, nor in the Insular Cases, that a territory can have 2 statuses - one for some things and another one for others, as you are suggesting. You are suggesting it is unincorporated for only the Revenue Clause, but incorporated for everything else, and those RS cites that you are using are confusing you further.
Consider this: If such split status was what Gelpi was saying then he wouldn't have said "in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place", because only a single act, the removal of the Revenue Clause constraint, would have been required to turn PR into an incorporated territory and not "an evolution of repeated annexations". As Gelpi said, only the US Supreme Court can make it incorporated (I believe so can Congress under the Territorial Clause). The Insular Cases are important to this discussion because, for the first time, they defined, among other things, that US territories came in two flavors: those, like Alaska, which were incorporated because Congress had opened up a path for it to become a state of the Union, and those, like Puerto Rico, which were unincorporated because Congress was not opening up a path for it to become a state of the Union.
Here is another idea for you. Rather than taking the controversy that you perceive exists and injecting it into the Puerto Rico article or the political status articles or any other article, why don't you instead create a new article altogether dedicated to just that controversy? We have several articles like that, for example Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, Miss USA 2009 controversy, and Washington Redskins name controversy. Mercy11 (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, and the material I cite may already have been fully discussed - but Puerto Rico is an Unincorporated Territory. See: [9], [10], [11], and [12]. Sarason (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Mercy11. and Sarason. "As Gelpi said only the US Supreme Court can make it incorporated.", no, Gelpi said Congress had over time incorporated Puerto Rico, -- but his decision did not overrule the Supreme Court. --- So Gelpi also did not overthrow the Supreme Court's discriminatory import revenue tax regime which is imposed on Puerto Rico favoring the domestic sugar cartel, he was addressing how a federal regulation applied to U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, an incorporated territory for that purpose. --- No source is quoted to say PR cannot be both unincorporated and incorporated, that is an individual interpretation.

But sources both say "unincorporated" and sources say "incorporated", so there is a controversy over the status, what degree and how it is one and the other. I understand you take up one side of the controversy, but one side does not describe the controversy over the status. --- Insular Cases observed Congress would have to make islanders citizens to incorporate them into the nation (Insular Case language: whether savages or not--and there are sources which characterize Insular Cases as racist), -- and subsequently, apart from and regardless of the Insular Cases, Congress and PR mutually have made Puerto Ricans U.S. citizens in the PR Constitution of 1952. This is exactly a kind of incorporation in which the Supreme Court defers to Congress, and which Gelpi observed Congress had done.---

The Constitution does not follow the flag, but it does follow citizenship. And over time both Congress and the Supreme Court extend more provisions to PR, and once extended, they cannot be withdrawn. --- Thank you for your confidence in me to start my own article, but it seems that an article about status already addresses the changes in PR status over a century, and briefly notes the controversy. I had not thought to enlarge on it. The initial proposal on my part was a mere compound sentence to relate the views of the majority (unincororated) and minority (incorporated) in the controversy. I am satisfied that not even a sentence is appropriately placed in the Puerto Rico article introduction, as the article is now written, and I no longer propose to add to it on this point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Public Law 53 (the Gag Law) made it abundantly clear that Puerto Rican first amendment rights (ie, constitutional rights) could be revoked at any time. See: Gag Law (Puerto Rico). If anyone wants to quibble that the law was passed by the Puerto Rican legislature, rubbish. The U.S. Congress retains plenary jurisdiction over every law passed by the Puerto Rican legislature. They can revoke, amend, and ignore any Puerto Rican law that they choose. That is one reason why Puerto Rico is a colony. Sarason (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
But that has been true of every incorporated territory in U.S. history, and only confirms PR incorporation into the U.S. federal republic according to its historical national practice, -- until statehood. It is also a reason why I favor statehood, as PR is made up of U.S. citizens who should be in a state larger than 20 smaller states, with six U.S. representatives and voting for president with 8 electoral college votes --now-- then make adjustments back from 441 in the House back to 435 at the next census count reapportionment of 2022. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Please remember the header to this talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." This is not the place to discuss personal political affiliations. Please stick to the subject of the article. I have seen personal comments being removed from Talk Pages before. Here we need to discuss "improvements to the Puerto Rico article" - nothing else. Mercy11 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I now do not propose to add to the introduction of the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all (yet again) for providing us with such a fine example of an attempt at introducing a WP:TROJAN. As Mercy11 has already pointed out, anyone is welcome to create their own article which does not have to be in agreement with any other article on the subject... so long as it can pass scrutiny as having WP:V and WP:RS tertiary and secondary references to support it. If you can come up with something that isn't WP:OR, good for you. Please read the lengthy diatribe already posted here on the matter, and recognise the fact that it's been written off as WP:SNOW. Please, let's not veer off-topic again. Thank you for your consideration. End of dialogue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, there is no call for name calling or contempt,--- DC license plates carried the slogan "last colony" before the home rule legislation was passed. Colonialism is injustice. I take it the consensus is that PR is a "colony" as Sarason has it, while it is a) locally self-governing territory of U.S. citizens, b) in a three-branch government under fundamental provisions of the Constitution, with c) a territorial representative in the national legislature? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The purpose of this RfC is to determine whether or not the current lede section using the wording "unincorporated territory" should be modified to include the fact that it has also been referred to as an "incorporated territory" "during scholarly disputes over Puerto Rican status." The purpose of this RfC is not to debate over whether Puerto Rico is a colony or not. If someone wants to start that debate, they can open a new RfC to spend time, energy and Wikipedia storage space arguing over that. Or someone could even start a new article over the "Puerto Rico is a colony controversy" just like we have similar controversy article (for example, Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, Miss USA 2009 controversy, and Washington Redskins name controversy). As such this offshoot discussion is at best tangent to RfC discussion. Let's remember that the header to this talk page states "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Discussion of personal political convictions do not belong here. Let's try harder to not deviate from discussing the unincorporated/incorporated issue so this discussion can come to an end. Mercy11 (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2014 (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.

Political status section

I just added material to several sections. I also shortened the "Political Status" section, in order to be able to remove the tag (it had been there for 6 months). I know this is a sensitive area, so please feel free to restore any pertinent material. Since there are other, larger articles in the area of Puerto Rico political status, and since there is a re-direct to those articles at the top of the "Political Status" section, I thought it would be feasible to shorten the material - in order to be able to remove the tag.

But again, to my fellow editors, please feel free to restore any material which you feel is important. I am not trying to delete or direct anything here - just trying to help. Sarason (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As the passage now reads, “U.S. federal law applies to Puerto Rico even though it is not a state”, the premise miscasts the nature of Puerto Rican status. U.S. federal law applies to Puerto Rico as it has with other U.S. territories over the course of 230 years, since the Articles of Confederation. This is the usual legal status of a territory that will eventually be admitted as a state in the Union. Propose: “U.S. federal law applies to Puerto Rico as it has with other U.S. territories later admitted as states.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting original research on Puerto Rico's status

Can someone please revert back the current form of the article before User:Agudueno inserted original research? I can't revert back as it would get me too close to WP:3RR. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico on stamps

I added a section under culture, 'Puerto Rico on stamps', noting the five U.S. commemoratives my research into U.S. territories on stamps brought to light. Two are USPS copyright after 1978, so I did not include them as images. I'm still working on understanding the 'fair use' doctrine as it relates to uploading stamp images onto wikipedia for the newer stamps. Any comments would be appreciated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

question mark Suggestion. I don't think a section like this is appropriate for a parent article. People look for general info here and this tidbit of info, while highly encyclopedic, is just for a very specific audience. Maybe you should move it to List of United States postage stamps featuring Puerto Rico? I don't know what's the convention for these matters but even if the title is a 'List' you can redact it like an article just like we did with List of Governors of Puerto Rico. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Further suggestion: The subsection really only needs a hatnote pointing to the main entry/article. What about pruning the summary a little and, if deemed necessary, using only a single image of one of the stamps (right aligned) rather than a gallery? It seems a little cumbersome to have these current images pushing the size of the article up (at 172 kb, this article already exceeds a comfortable reading and download size). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. San Juan commemorative chosen, summary text pared to fit one right aligned image. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, TheVirginiaHistorian! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
A Philately wikiproject administrator, User:Philafrenzy, has divided off my work at Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico into an article of his own creating, Puerto Rico on stamps. He did this as soon as I uploaded the "fair use" stamp images for Columbus' Landing at Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico flag, Roberto Clemente, Julia de Burgos and Jose Ferrer.
Philafrenzy claims other Philately editors would have eliminated the fair use images under the category 'Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico' because they are ABOUT Puerto Rico not OF Puerto Rico. He seem to think there have been Puerto Rican stamps apart from Spanish stamps and U.S. stamps. When I suggested that he join the discussion here, he said stamp discussions should be at the Philately project.
Ahnoneemoos reverted his deletion with the rationale that the U.S. stamps section was not developed enough for a separate article, Philafrenzy reverted the restoration. I am pleased with the consensus achieved here, and I would also like the work to survive in mainspace -- somewhere. It seems I tried to bridge stamps and history in a philatelic article instead of a topical article? I have printed the stamp images out for my children in the event they are purged. I do not know how to proceed. Thank you again for your encouragement here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Nothing was deleted it was just moved to a more suitable place. Yes I was unaware of this discussion, it probably should have taken place either on the Philately project or a link placed there so that other interested editors could contribute here. There is nothing wrong with splitting it off into a separate article as it was a topical philatelic article not one about the stamps of PR. The stamps shown were about PR not of PR. And there are stamps of PR. In fact the article Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico shows three different types including postage, revenue and telegraph stamps all specifically for PR. There is also a lot more that can be added. In philately there is a big difference between stamps OF a place and stamps ABOUT a place or subject which are termed "topical". The stamps added under fair use did not have a valid fair use rationale as they did not match the stated article subject which is stamps OF Puerto Rico. Moving them and that content protects it from deletion as "off topic", allows expansion without becoming too large in the context of the original article, and correctly reflects the topical nature of the subject matter. Check the rest of the topical category for similar articles about XXXX on stamps. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Much clearer explanation. The "specifically for" Puerto Rico U.S. stamps would be the overprints only? I think there is a U.S. postage due with "Puerto Rico" overprint in the Wikimedia Commons data base. It should go into Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not saying the article can't include any US stamps, but I would suggest that those included should mainly be intended specifically for use in PR, particularly if we are relying on a fair use rationale in order to justify their inclusion. So yes the overprints, the Spanish era revenues and telegraphs, and for recent stamps, covers and stamps with PR postmarks. I am sure there is plenty to add re modern postal history of PR such as mail routes to the US, airmail letters, postmarks of PR etc. I will see what I can find too. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's a few links:
http://stampauctionnetwork.com/f/f1201.cfm
http://www.oldoakenbucket.net/Postmarks/PR.htm (mostly still in copyright stamps but a good example of the sort of thing one could add)
http://www.prstamps.com/
Philafrenzy (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

POV question re the last sentence of this article's lede

I recently added a clarifying sentence to the end of this article's lede, which reads as follows: "Under the tenets of the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, Puerto Ricans are still subject to the plenary jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress, and the island continues as a U.S. territory."

A POV question mark was placed after this sentence.

I know this Talk Page is not a forum for political colloquy - but since the POV question was raised, I am forced to address it as briefly as possible. Subsequently, if an editor disputes and/or disagrees with the sentence I added and this forthcoming explanation, please feel free to amend or remove it. I know that editors are very busy, and I will not burden you with ongoing pedantry or debate.

The U.S. Congress passed Public Law 600 in July 1950. Attached to the bill was the "new" Federal Relations Act (the FRA) - which simply re-stated the core elements of the first Organic Act of 1900 (the Foraker Act) and the second Organic Act (the Jones Act of 1917). Essentially, the FRA reiterated that Puerto Rico belonged to the United States. See Ronald Fernandez, The Disenchanted Island, (Westport, CT: Praeger Books, 1996) p. 182.

Section 9 of the new (but really old) FRA provided – as did the Foraker and Jones Acts – that “the statutory laws of the United States…will have the same force and effect in Puerto Rico as in the United States.” The FRA was then codified into the U.S. Code at 48 U.S.C. 731, 734. See 48 United States Code 731, at Section 734. See also Manuel Maldonado-Denis, Puerto Rico: A Socio-Historic Interpretation (New York: Random House, 1971) p.195.

You can read the U.S. Code language for yourself. Look at Section §734, on page 56: [13].

In other words, Section 9 of the FRA and Section §734 of 48 U.S.C. 741 re-affirmed the Foraker and Jones Act precedents: the U.S. Congress would continue to legislate for the Puerto Rican people without their consent. That is pecisely what the above-cited language states.

Two years later, in July 1952, Puerto Ricans voted on a “constitution” and submitted it to (you guessed it) the U.S. Congress for their approval. The 82nd U.S. Congress swiftly eliminated section 20 from its Bill of Rights (with respect to the right to work, and the right to an adequate standard of living) and added the following language: “Any amendment or revision of this constitution shall be consistent with...the Constitution of the United States, the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, and Public Law 600.” See Congressional Record, pp. 6184-86, 82nd Cong., 2nd Sess. See also José Trías Monge, Puerto Rico: The Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World (Yale University Press, 1997) p. 117. (Please note: José Trías Monge was the Attorney General of Puerto Rico, and the Chief Justice of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court).

In other words, the Puerto Rican “constitution” was entirely subordinate to the FRA – and by extension, the decades-old Foraker (1900) and Jones (1917) Acts. Therefore in plain language, which came directly from the U.S. Congress, nothing was changed by the FRA or the Puerto Rican “constitution.” See Manuel Maldonado-Denis, Puerto Rico: A Socio-Historic Interpretation (New York: Random House, 1971) pp.194-200.

The legislative intent was also clear, from the opinions expressed by several congressmen during the FRA hearings. For example the committee chairman (of the House Committee on Public Lands), Congressman Fred Crawford (R-Mich.) stated: “Certainly Puerto Rico cannot support any type of independence. She would have to be a puppet of some other country. But Puerto Rico can be a colonial possession.” See Congressional Record, p. 9593, 81st Cong., 2nd Sess. See also Trías Monge, Puerto Rico: Trials of the Oldest Colony, op. cit., p. 129. Congressman George Meader (R-Mich.) insisted on an amendment stating that "Congress was not divesting itself of any power over Puerto Rico under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution." See Congressional Record, pp. 6184-86, 82nd Cong., 2nd Sess.

In actuality Crawford and Meader were both from Michigan, and deeply concerned that a more "independent" Puerto Rico might be empowered to negotiate its own trade agreements. This would have generated significant manufacturing and job transfers from Detroit to the island. The congressmen thus made sure that all trade, cabotage and admiralty law restrictions on Puerto Rico were affirmed by the FRA, before they signed onto the bill. See James L. Dietz, Economic History of Puerto Rico, (Princeton University Press, 1986) pp. 241-310; and James L. Dietz, Puerto Rico: Negotiating Development and Change, (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Pub., 2003) pp. 79-119. See also Juan Gonzalez, Harvest of Empire, (New York: Penguin Books, 2011) pp. 280-286; Trías Monge, Puerto Rico: Trials of the Oldest Colony, op. cit., pp. 117-118.

In addition the U.S. Secretary of the Interior (Oscar Chapman) wrote a letter to every committee member, assuring them that: “The bill under consideration (FRA) will not change Puerto Rico’s political, social, and economic relationship to the United States.” See Truman Library, Papers of Stephen Spingarm, Box 19. See also Trías Monge, Puerto Rico: Trials of the Oldest Colony, op. cit., pp. 181, 198.

The U.S. Senate was equally clear. The Senate report on Puerto Rico's "constitution" issued a stern warning: "Any act of the Puerto Rican legislature in conflict with the Federal Relations Act will be null and void." See "Hearings Before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs," Approving Puerto Rican Constitution, U.S. Senate, pp. 355-357, 82nd Cong., 2nd Sess. See also Gordon Lewis, Puerto Rico: Freedom and Power in the Caribbean (New York: Harper & Row, 1963) pp. 355-357; Ronald Fernandez, Los Macheteros, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987) p. 150.

Given this robust Congressional record, and the language of the FRA itself, it is clear that “Under the tenets of the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, Puerto Ricans are still subject to the plenary jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress.”

That is the sentence which I added, as a simple statement of fact. It is not POV.

Regarding the last clause of the sentence, which states “the island continues as a U.S. terrtitory,” we need to simply consult the title of 48 U.S. Code 731, as it appears in the code book itself: [14][15]

As you can see, the title given by the U.S. Government to its own law 48 U.S. Code 731, is Territory Included under name Puerto Rico.

The U.S. Government, in its own statutes, continues to designate Puerto Rico as its “territory.” The U.S. Congress wrote this code, and the U.S. Government Printing Office published it. Not me. So this was not a POV statement. Sarason (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I do not know the origin of the tag, but the comment may just not be appropriate for the introduction, since the first sentence identifies Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory of the United States, so your draft statement is redundant there.
Puerto Rico is of course a Commonwealth of the United States, an organized territory, unincorporated for taxes but incorporated for citizenship, fundamental constitutional rights, territorial representation in Congress, federal judiciary, etc.
For the --- 'Political status' --- section, we have my proposed language above which echos yours, Propose: “U.S. federal law applies to Puerto Rico as it has with other U.S. territories later admitted as states.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Ahnoneemoos, I am confused a bit perhaphs. It appears from your diff link above (THIS one) that you added/modified some text in that "end of the lede" area and then you added the POV tag to your own text. I know this question sounds silly so pardon my confusion but, was that what you intended to add the tag to your own text? (BTW, as it reads right now, "Under the tenets of the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, Puerto Ricans are still subject to the plenary jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress, and the island continues as a U.S. territory"), I don't see any problem with that statement, and think the POV tag is unwarranted as everthing there is sourced, non-POV, later in the text of the article.) Mercy11 (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • {{POV-check inline}} can be used when you yourself add something that others might consider controversial but you yourself don't. It's something that says: "I myself I'm not sure if this is NPOV or not, can someone else check for me or rephrase what I'm trying to convey?" As editors we must always take great care to adhere to NPOV but sometimes words just don't come out right. This tag allows others to either remove or rephrase the text without contest. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Improvement to History section needed?

I'm just noting here that there seems to be a repetition of a fact about an archeological dig in 1990 on the island of Vieques in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.0.119 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 27 March 2014

Remove "Beautiful Weather"

Should we remove the "is subject to beautiful weather statement" from the intro? It seems very subjective for an article. How about something along the lines of "is subject to warm weather"? 69.54.1.77 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's called "trying to seek a consensus". I get why you wouldn't know anything about that though. Feedback ☎ 00:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Cost of Living NPOV

I should have explained why I think the Cost of Living section is NPOV. Cost of living is a delicate topic and is always a comparison between two areas. I feel that the section does not convey this comparison well. Also, most of the data used is from the Metro area while the other parts of the island are not taken into consideration. Furthermore, there is evidence in different web sites that cost of living in Puerto Rico is lower than in the mainland U.S. and certainly lower than many countires in Europe. This, coupled with the fact that if you are relocated from PR to the US you get a salary increase leads me to believe that PR does not have a higher cost of living than the US. Again, it's all relative.

Finally, I feel that the section is written to push an agenda. One of the US oppressing PR economically with the current Cabotage laws. Joelito (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Could you provide us with reliable sources to back up these arguments you mention? Could you also provide examples on how this section is "pushing an agenda" where the "US oppresses PR economically with the current cabotage laws"? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Facts are used all the time to push agendas. However, I must admit that maybe I was harsh in my initial statement. I would say that the cost of living section is not balanced rather than it is intended to push an agenda. Also, cost of living figures are statements of facts of limited data.
Let me break down the first few sentences.
  • The cost of living in Puerto Rico is high and has increased in the past decade. True but again cost of living is a comparison. High against what?
  • San Juan's in particular is higher than Atlanta, Dallas, and Seattle but lower than Boston, Chicago, and New York City. One factor is housing prices which are comparable to Miami and Los Angeles, although property taxes are considerably lower than most places in the United States. From Zillow.com: "The median home value in Miami is $266,600". "The median home value in Los Angeles is $492,900." San Juan median list prices is $250,000 while San Juan Metro is $199,000. Comparable to Miami, sure. To Los Angeles, not even close. Why is the comparison not made against Hawaii, an island under U.S. jurisdiction. "The median home value in Hawaii is $494,700". The median list price in the US? $199,000. Joelito (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your first item, the problem there is not an NPOV issue but a lack of context. You can use something like {{example needed}}, {{vague}}, or {{how}}. The statement, "The cost of living in Puerto Rico is high" is sourced. If you, as an editor, believe it to be necessary to expand on what 'high' entails then by all means use any of the aforementioned templates, but I would advise that you refrain from using {{NPOV-section}} as the statement is sourced. If the sources don't explain what 'high' is then help us find a source that does. Believe me, I tried to look for one when I added the text but I had the very same problem you are exposing: none of the sources explained what they meant by 'high' nor made a comparison.

Regarding your second item, the first statement comes from Mercer which is considered one of the most (if not the most) well-respected source for cost of living. The second statement comes from Zillow as well but that was back in 2012-2013. Since then the U.S. market has rebounded so we might have to update that data. Use {{update}} or {{update-inline}} instead. Why is it not made against Hawaii? I don't know. Why is it not made against Connecticut which has a similar area and similar population as Puerto Rico's? Or against Guam which is also an unincorporated territory of the United States? Or against Rhode Island which has a similar population density to Puerto Rico? If you want a specific comparison then feel free to add it yourself but don't ask us why the comparison is not made in a specific way.

So, all in all, it doesn't seem this is an NPOV issue, but rather (i) that you desire more context, that (ii) the data is outdated, and that (iii) you want comparisons to be made in a very specific manner. Use the appropriate templates then and let's just update the data that is outdated.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I still feel this is a NPOV section since there is clear bias in trying to present PR as a high cost of living place. A bit more balance would even it out. The suggestions provided by Ahnoneemos are very good and I will make the updates when time permits. I'm not a fan of tagging everything in sight so I would probably just update the text and let the community decide if it's good or not. Joelito (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico - Cost of living section

Joel, on April 14 you offered to write something in the "Cost of Living" section of this article. I know you have contributed a great deal to this article, so it would be great (as the most frequent editor) if you could help out one more time (!)

I'll wait a few days...if nothing happens, I'll take a stab at it myself. The NPOV tag has been up there a long time, and I'd like to resolve the matter and remove it. Thanks! Sarason (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Greater or lesser?

According to this article, Puerto Rico can be considered the largest of the lesser or the smallest of the greater. However, it is only mentioned in the article on the Greater Antilles, and not at all in the one on the Lesser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.226.67.98 (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Cost of Living

Over a month ago, on this talk page, I invited any editorial input to resolve the "cost of living" discussion in order to obviate the need for a template. If you review the archive you will see this invitation. No one responded so I removed the "high" cost of living adjective, which tempers the first sentence in the "Cost of Living" section. This addresses the "high" cost of living issue. Sarason (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

United Nations Special Subcommitee on Decolonozation

While I'm sure the inclusion of this subcommitee's resolutions are relevant in some people's minds as to the eventual Puerto Rican political status, it's literally as influential as a Perez Hilton blog post would be on the matter. And its mentioned twice. Once when its draft was approved in 2009 and again when it was finalized in 2012 as if these were critical points in the timeline we were all waiting with baited breath for. I'm not changing it, because I don't feel like getting in some edit war with whatever Venezualan agent is monitoring this page ... just throwing it out there. I particularly enjoyed the irony of the call for expiditing "self-determination and independence" when the Puerto Rican people in fact subsequently self-determined themselves to be dependent (a U.S. state). Thank God the well known colonization watchdog Syria is on that committee, keeping us all honest. Wouldn't want it to be a complete joke.151.124.247.200 (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Porto Rico

Nowhere in the article until the footnotes is it mentioned that for at least half a century, the US officially misspelled the name in official documents, newspapers, and even in the Pan-Am Exposition. I believe this should be brought out in the article and mentioned early.

--Unicorn Tapestry {say} 19:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"National language"

I have removed the reference to a "National language" and kept the reference to PR's two official languages (Law 1-1993). The use of "National" could legitimately be construed to refer to the nation of which PR is a part or a possession of, the United States. The US does not have a "national" language. Tenth Amendment, USConst. reserves that power to the states, respectively. Using the word "national" to refer to Puerto Rico is inappropriate since politically, Puerto Rico is not a separate nation from the US. The existing reference to "official" languages, which I have left untouched, is more than appropriate.Pr4ever (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Autonomy"/"Commonwealth status"

As article clearly states, PR is an unicorporated organized territory of US, and has been since 1898.

Rather than "Autonomy within the United States", "Relationship within United States" is more neutral. PR actually enjoys less autonomy than federated states. States' autonomy is protected from federal encroachment by the Tenth Amendment. Whatever powers PR enjoys are by Congressional grant under Art IV, Sec 3, cl. 2 of the US Const. and subject to be withdrawn or denied.

Thus, on July 25, 1952 the change was the promulgation, not of "Commonwealth status" (unchanged since 1898) but of the Commonwealth's constitution governing internal affairs (a federal law continues governing the relationship) and the adoption of the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico", rather than "the people of Puerto Rico" as the new designation of the body politic, not unlike the designation of the states of Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, as well as the unincorporated territory of the Northern Marianas Islands in the Pacific.Pr4ever (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

2006 and 2013 recessions

As per my edit of the Economy section, PR's 2006 recession ended with 4 qtrs of positive economic growth in 2012 (generating a 0.9% FY growth rate). See page two of http://gis.jp.pr.gov/Externo_Econ/Ingreso%20y%20producto/Ingreso%20y%20Producto%202013.pdf, published by the current García-Padilla administration's Planning Board. A new recession began in 2013. Thus, there are two distinct recessions, 2006-2011 and 2013-present.Pr4ever (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • As you may note in the investopedia article you refer to, a double dip recession is defined as one whre there are "one or two quarters" of growth. However, as the PR Planning Board official statistics that I referred to clearly explained, PR enjoyed at least 4 quarters (a full year) of sustained, albeit modest, economic growth, distinctly separating the 2006 recession which ended in 2011 from the new, distinct, recession which began in 2013. During the four quarters of 2012, Purto Rico was free of recession. Thus, although the current administration and economists under contract with them would like to fit the two distinct recessions as a "double-dip", the facts that their own agencies provide give the lie to that theory. Pr4ever (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico

Was the Spanish name set by the 1952 Constitution? I can't find a reference to it there. If not, what law set it to that? --Golbez (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? --Golbez (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bankruptcy?

"Puerto Rico says it cannot pay its debt, setting off potential crisis in the U.S." [18]

"Puerto Rico's Governor Says Island's Debts Are 'Not Payable'" [19] New York Times

"Puerto Rico Has No Easy Path Out of Debt Crisis" [20] Wall Street Journal

Is that really nearly $20K per person in PR? Shenme (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 28 external links on Puerto Rico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&note_id=10150636306261338
  2. ^ https://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&note_id=10150177303986338
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puerto_Rico/Archive_4&oldid=1143389242"