Talk:Puerto Rico Police

(untitled)

I created this article on July 19, 2006. I am currently adding material as I collect information on the topic. Please do not delete.

I placed a citation link to the website where I got the info for this article. What am I doing wrong?

The link was incorrect. I've fixed it for you. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 20:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

merge proposal

• support merge-I had no idea this earlier stub existed, happy to see them come together as a bit larger article. Chris 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PuertoRicoPD2.jpg

Image:PuertoRicoPD2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PuertoRicoPD.jpg

Image:PuertoRicoPD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico State Police

I believe that the title of this entry is incorrect; a (blank) Police Department is usually associated with a city/county/municipal jurisdiction, such as San Juan Police Department. Policia de Puerto Rico is a State Police organization and is recognized as such on the national level.

I understand that due to political correctness considerations some might prefer not to use "State" police, but it must be kept in mind that "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" is translated as "Estado Libre Associado de Puerto Rico" (Free Associated State of Puerto Rico).

Other candidates might be Puerto Rico National Police (which does not fit in fully with the local sensibility) or Puerto Rico Commonwealth Police.

I would like to see an official source calling the PRSP the PRPD.Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The official translation is the Puerto Rico Police Department however I have also seen the term Puerto Rico Commonwealth Police used in some English media. Before 1956 the agency's official name was the Puerto Rico Insular Police. Back during the Bush Senior era the federal government made the decision to treat the territory level government agencies as the equivalent of state government agencies for official federal purposes, so the Puerto Rico Police Department is in fact the equivalent of the New York State Police for example.

They use the term "Free Associated State" because the actual status of unincorporated territory with commonwealth status can't really be readily translated into Spanish. Puerto Ricans are also in denial that they are a dependent territory (the current PC term for colony), they like to think they are an independent country. Also, their seems to be a recent trend of giving the world's remaining dependent territories silly politically correct names. Another example would be Aruba, St. Maartin, and Curacao being called "autonomous countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands" even though their political status is really more like that of a state within the United States.Cfagan1987 (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Jose Figueroa Sancha fue despedido

en Julio 2 de 2011 el Sr. Jose Figueroa Sancha fue Despedido del puesto tras 3 años de pesima administracion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.180.196 (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

new Superintendent

Former FBI Special Agent Hector M Pesquera has been appointed as the new Superintendent of the Puerto Rico State Police. www.caribbeanbusinesspr.com/news03.php?nt_id=69767&ct_id=1 69.115.242.114 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2012 (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.

---

"Second-largest police department in the United States"

As invited by Mercy11 (talk · contribs), in respect of this diff - I disagree. This is a police department, and it is in "the United States" - "the United States", as that article says in the second sentence, "consists of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions." ninety:one 11:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Mercy11 (talk · contribs), Ninetyone (talk · contribs) As we all struggle with "What is in the US", I invite you to see this definition of the US on the USGS:Science for a changing world site . Should then, parts of this article be rephrased / corrected? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ninetyone (talk · contribs) for purposes of whether or not Policia de Puerto Rico should be considered to be in the United States, you would need to use reliable sources. The article on United States you used doesn't come from a reliable source, since at WP we don't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source. I also noticed your emphasis "the United States" as opposed to Eloquent's "in the United States". I think it's important we clarify where the focus should be and why. "in the United States", obviously, already assumes we have a common understanding of what the "United States" consists of.

The Eloquent Peasant (talk · contribs) thanks for that source. The first statement there ("under the sovereigny of the US") supports why "under the American flag" (the term I used in the article) is a more accurate description for use in the Puerto Rico Police article. Needless to say, your source is right on the money as it plainly defines "United State" to mean the 50 states, DC, and nothing else. Further, what better source for these definitions than the US Government itself: the US Govt/Executive Branch, its Agencies (as yours, the USGS), the US Congress, the SCOTUS, etc.? I don't think we can have very many questions about what is in the US and what is not after reading a source like that one. What do you say Ninetyone? Mercy11 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy: Certainly very confusing. I agree with the fact that 'under the American flag' is simpler, and avoids us having to the debate whether or not PR is in the US. However, there are other US Government sources which state that the US does include the territories. Technically, the USGS definition should also include Palmyra Atoll as it is an 'incorporated'territory.' However, it should also be noted that (in a geographical sense) the US can be defined as all lands under it's sovereignty (including territories). I also personally don't think that it is necessarily wrong to say that PR and the territories are 'in the US.' The majority of federal laws apply in PR and the other territories (just like the states); US Federal District Courts have a firm presence and power in PR and the territories, so in my opinion it would be odd to simply say that PR is not in the US. The territories are confusing, as they can be considered part of the US proper for some purposes, and not for others. Most laws do treat PR and the territories as a state (even if it's really not). However, the bottom line is that everyone must know that PR is US soil, and that it is not 'wrong' to say that PR is in the US. It can cause misunderstandings. I also encourage you to study the number of 'COVID-19 cases in the United States' by the CDC and US health officials. One thing I know is that the cases for US Territories ARE included in the 'US total' (by the CDC too). Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy: I also encourage you to read the discussion on the PR Wikiprojects Standards talk page, whic discusses whether or not we should say that PR is in the US. Thanks Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

About the 'operations jurisdiction section.' For certain purposes, including police and justice related agencies, PR can be considered to be in the US, as federal laws apply as I stated above, and federal agencies oversee it. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I am familiar with the discussions relative to this subject at the PR WikiProject Standards page, but thanks. As with your opinions at that page, your opinions above fail to prove anything one way or the other. Our opinions are just that - opinions. Some of yiour opinions above are somewhat valid examples, others, imo, aren't at all. But none of them are deterministic. We need to stick to facts, and facts alone. IAE, as to your comments above, the "debate" of whether or not PR is "in" the US is precisely why we are here having this discussion. And Eloquent's RS source above is, imo, the way to go. Nothing better to define what something is than that entity's own view of itself, meaning, there is no better source to determine what the US is than to go and get the answer from the US itself, right? AS to your "confusing", it need not be. For example the Atoll example, the "The majority of federal laws apply" example, and your subsequent examples are all WP:OTHERSTUFF. You cannot prove a fact by giving examples and then synthesizing them into your own conclusion; that's WP:OR. Mercy11 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy: Thanks for your response. I request you to read the first paragraph of the USGS article, where it states that the in a geographical sense, and as a general reference, the US includes all areas under it's sovereignty. However, I respect your view on this, and cannot get my head around this myself. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy: Please read the CDC website for coronavirus figures in the US. If you study it carefully, you should notice that the territories are included within the total. I have studied it myself, and know it for a fact. That is the only thing I can actually 'prove.' Thanks. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy: In the talk page, I also copied a section quoted from a US Govt document, to show evidence of what the US includes 'in a geographical sense.' Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Look, it need not be confusing. However, you won't be helping yourself if you read something and then give it your own twist. If I may ask, depose yourself (for a second) of all distractions and any preconceived ideas, and think of it in this simple way:

• Puerto Rico belongs to the United States ("Insular possessions of the United States other than Puerto Rico"),

but

• Puerto Rico is not a part of the United States. ("The Island of Porto Rico [sic] is not a part of the United States").

Are we in agreement that these are two valid (true) statements based on their reliable sources?

(BTW, I know you are new here, about 1-2 months old only at WP, so please indent your answears by adding one colon (":") to the colons used by the editor you are answering to. So if the editor used 6 colons ("::::::"), your reply should be using 7 colons (":::::::"). Thanks.)

Mercy11 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy: Thanks. I am aware of the SCOTUS ruling. Actually, if you read it carefully, it says that PR 'is not part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the constitution.' What this was referring to was trade and commerce, not a general rule. This is a misconception. You are only quoting part of that statement by the SCOTUS and not the whole thing. I also believe that this ruling has been overturned. I have done thorough research on this topic, and from what I have read, there is no definite and uniform answer as to whether PR is in the US or not. However, practically, in most cases, it should be acceptable to say that PR is a part of/in the US as that is the way most people will understand it. I have done my research. Best regards:-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy:: Also your first citation is not linked to this topic at all. It's talking about the customs territory of the United States, which includes PR, but not the other territories. It's not referring to the US in general. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

::::::::Did you read my comments about indentation above? Did you read the post about edituing above the References below? I am not sure you will be able to understand the topic we are discussing if you cannot understand the requirement on indentation and regarding references. Did you understand my comments about indentation above and about reference below? Mercy11 (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC) @Mercy:::: I am very sorry. I thought that it meant to add an extra colon every time I replied to a user (e.g. "@User:: @User:::"). I apologize if I misunderstood a bit. Thanks for the info though:-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC) @Mercy: Correction Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC) No, I am afraid you didn't misunderstand a bit, but a lot: Your edits need to be entered above the "[Do not edit below this line. Thank you.]". That way, if other editors need to include a cite of their own, all cites will appear in one location only and always at the bottom of the Discussion, just like the articles you have been editing. Mercy11 (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Additionally, you are still using the colons incorrectly. I have corrected them for you for the 4th or so time. Hopefully you will get the hang of it soon as I am not convinced we can tackle the issue we are here for unless these basic encyclopedia rules are being practiced. They help everyone experience reading and follow-up that will be less confusing-free. Hopefully we are in sync now, are we? Mercy11 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC) @Mercy: Thanks, I think I'm getting the hang of it now. Hopefully, we can continue the original discussion that we were here for. I hope you have read my previous arguments, regarding this topic. :-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC) One more thing, I'm not quite sure how to edit above the "[Do not edit below this line. Thank you.]" Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC) @Mercy: Thanks Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Yes, that was a lot better. As for the "[Do not edit below this line. Thank you.]", just place your cursor anywhere in the blank space before the "[Do not edit below this line. Thank you.]" and start typing, that's all (don't type after the {{Reftalk}}). That's all. Mercy11 (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(Goodness, not sure that needed to turn into such a WP:BITEy performance. I suggest the next time you consider it necessary to patronise a new editor over their use of indentation you do so on their talk page.) I propose we adopt the wording of the source and use the formulation "United States and its territories". I think the average reader would be less concerned with the exact political status of Puerto Rico and more interested in knowing its police force is quite big, even when compared to the NYPD. Sound good? ninety:one 21:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What's your point with the ASU article? Next time you want to call attention to something I suggest you provide a fragment, perhaps in quotes, as in "Joel Feliz de Jesus had been drinking", because frankly I have no time for that WP:Wall of text. But if the article is irrelevant, as it appears, I agree we can drop political status references and just state the size of its force. The comparison there with NYPD is inappropriate anyway: PRP operates over 78 cities and towns, NYPD over 1 city; that needs to go too. Care to phrase it that way? Mercy11 (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I do like using "United States and its territories" as used in this article with "the second largest police force in the United States and its territories". It's correct, simple, beautiful, simply brilliant. Take out the political status reference because readers are interested in learning about the PR Police force here. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It would still be an misleading statement: we don't compare the police depatment of, say, the State of Nebraska with that of the City of New York. Why compare the Puerto Rico Police with the New York City Police department? Simply because a publication somewhere did, doesn't automatically belong in the encyclopeida. I propose to simply state, "As of 2012 the Puerto Rico Police force had 17,000 members.". And that's it. There's no need for misleading comparisons nor debatable political status phrases. I don't see "the second largest police force in the United States and its territories" being correect at all. Is the PR Police force larger than that of the State of California, the State of New York, and the State of Texas? If not, then it not "the second largest police force in the United States and its territories." Totally wrong. BTW, per WP:LEAD, that statement belongs in the body of the text anyway, not the lead. Mercy11 (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy11: That's a good point, you know. Why are we always comparing Puerto Rico? I see this done often and have also asked the same question elsewhere (on the COVID19 Pandemic in PR article). Anyway I remember that some people advocated for eliminating some municipalities in P.R. because they think 78 is too many compared to # of counties in Oklahoma, for instance. Someone is always saying some department or other is too big in P.R. in comparison to the same thing in the US. I saw this same thing happen on the PR Department of Education article," it's the biggest Department of Education..." and again compares it to some US state Department of Education. Always trying to compare apples to oranges. So this is done again and again and again, here on Wikipedia and in magazines, etc. Not sure why but I think it's because the largeness of something in PR is then followed up with the corruptness of the same thing. Anyway, I agree Mercy, that this is the best way to phrase it: "As of 2012 the Puerto Rico Police force had 17,000 members." The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy: @The Eloquent Peasant: Yes, it would be inappropriate to compare the PRPD with the Police Department of a municipality (like NYC). However, I would argue that the PRPD is more like a statewide police department (some states have this, like Hawaii), rather than a local police department. If we want to compare municipal police departments (e.g. New Orleans Police Department), we should compare it with, say the San Juan Police Department. It's simple, and it's a logical comparison. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(@Mercy: Ctrl-F will find the relevant bit of text quite easily, as you seem to have done.) None of the state police forces in America come close to the size of the big city police forces, or the PRPD - the California Highway Patrol, the largest, is still 10,000 officers smaller than the PRPD. This is a comparison in absolute numbers - I think it is both useful and interesting to know that the police force of a state-approximate unit is of that order of magnitude, and I think the reader would find it so too - and I don't think it has anything to do with any suggestion of corruption or inefficiency. ninety:one 09:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No one here is saying, nor suggesting, anything about corruption or inefficiency. What is being said is that the "making it the second-largest police department under the American flag" or "making it the second-largest police department in the United States" doesn't belong there because PR isn't "in" the US. Puerto Rico is defined as "an unincorporated territory of the US". By definition, that means it is not a part of the US, not in the US. Thus the statemnet is contradictory. Again, I am proposing we use "As of 2012 the Puerto Rico Police force had 17,000 members.", and leave out all references to political status. Mercy11 (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Anonymous MK2006; The Eloquent Peasant; Ninetyone, and every one else out there: After 3 days without additional comments, it seems all comments have already been made. Please enter your username under the preference wording your suppport below. Add any other preferred wording not yet listed to the bottom of the list. Mercy11 (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Preferred wording

Please add your usernname under your preference below (Mercy11 has added username as an example):

• Choice #1: "As of 2012 the Puerto Rico Police Force had 17,000 members, making it the second-largest police department under the American flag, after the New York City Police Department."
  

• Anonymous_MK2006 (talk) 7:00, 14 October 2020

• Choice #2: "As of 2012 the Puerto Rico Police Force had 17,000 members, making it the second-largest police department in the United States, after the New York City Police Department."
  

• GELongstreet (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Choice #3: "As of 2012 the Puerto Rico Police Force had 17,000 members."
  

• Mercy11 (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yarfpr (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment on the choices. I'm confused. Why are we comparing PR to NY city (a city)? Since PR is not a city we shouldn't be comparing it to a city. Also, why does the article lead have the sentence (a comparison of PR and NY) at all, when it's not discussed at all in the body of the article. Isn't the lead supposed to summarize parts of the article? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment in response to @The Eloquent Peasant:'s question. Puerto Rico is a unique jurisdiction as it operates a "statewide" police department (probably due to its size), which most states don't have. However, I think the point of this article was to show the sheer size of the PRPD by comparing it to the NYPD, even though that is a "citywide" police department. I think that this article is referring to police departments in general, not just state/territorial or city police, and the PRPD itself has quite a lot of officers, which would make it the second largest police department of any jurisdiction under the US flag, second to the NYPD (even though the former is a territory, and the latter is a city). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous MK2006 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment but the thing is, guys, that this article is terribly outdated. Those figures are from almost 8 years ago and a more current figure in the article has a much lesser number of officers (but with no reference) with this claim "As of 2019, the PRPD has dropped to 6,450 officers." This article really needs to be improved. I searched for a few minutes, for a reference for the # of officers in the PRPD, and didn't find it. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In 2011 the PRPD had 22K officers, but in 2018 had 12K. Now in 2020 it has __?__. So maybe we ought not talk about its size as it constantly changes, bigly. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

[Do not edit below this line. Thank you.]

References

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.