Jump to content

Talk:Stateside Puerto Ricans/Archive 1

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

Earlier version

An earlier version of this entry appeared as the introduction to my, Angelo Falcón, Atlas of Stateside Puerto Ricans (Washington, DC: Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, 2004), which is not copyrighted.

This was submitted as part of the resolution of the problem of the "Puerto Rican" and "Portorican" entries that it was suggested should be merged. The two entries are too much of a mess to accomplish this easily, so I thought this might be an easier solution.Prpolicy 08:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nations with larger exile populations than native

The entry, as it reads now, says:

To give a sense of the scale of this Puerto Rican demographic development, the only comparable situation would be that of the Irish, which is so atypical that it underscores the uniqueness of the Puerto Rican case. As a result of the catastrophic potato famine of the 19th century and other developments, today the Irish-American population is close to 6 times (594.7 percent) that of the combined populations of Ireland and Northern Ireland. (Census Bureau 2004b).

I can add another example from the Demographics of Cape Verde. The population of the actual Republic of Cape Verde is around 420,000, yet according to that article, this is little more than a third of the worldwide Cape Verdean population.

That's just the one example I'm familiar with. I do not doubt that more such examples could be easily found with some research, which makes this claim of uniqueness hard to entertain. Sacundim 08:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: This Article was in reference to the U.S. and not Worldwide

The only problem with your comment is that this article is only making reference to migrations to the United States, not worldwide. What you are discussing is a whole other question that should probably be the subject of a separate article. Prpolicy 13:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Although it seems like there are Pacific Islander American communities that outnumber the island they come from, but I'm not sure. Also aren't all Puerto Ricans "in the United States?" (I curiously read someone once complain about Puerto Ricans in connection with complaints about illegal immigration. Someone informed him Puerto Rico is a US Commonwealth, as such there are no "illegal Puerto Rican immigrants" in the way he meant, and he was quite embarrassed)--T. Anthony 08:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Gallos Marruecos

I have heard some people call stateside puertoricans Gallos Marruecos, but I do not know what they mean by that.

I never heard that reference. Isn't Marruecos Spanish for Morocco? Prpolicy 03:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, but I checked again and it was more of a joke or insult among some people from the island. A "gallo marrueco" is a fighting cock that doesn't fight very well.

I think the joke means that third generation Puertoricans or people who claim to be puertorican but have never been to the island that live in the United States aren't very puertorican when you think about it.

Kinda confusing. -- signed by anon IP

Marruecos is another spelling for the Spanish slang "Morochos", also the term is strongly used in the Mexican immigrant community. Oddly, the term came from medieval Spanish spoken back in Spain during the 16th century to mean a Moor ( an "Arabic" person from Morocco or North Africa, whom were darker-looking than European spaniards and are primarily Muslims, the religion went into extinction by the Spanish Inquisition to do away with non-Catholic Christian minorities).

The new meaning of "marrueco/morocho" means an underclass element, born and raised in America but not assimilated, treated like "dark people" among white Anglos and descendants of rural peasants whom had to leave their homeland long ago for prosperity not yet fully acheived.

I live in southern Cal. where the main Hispanic group are Mexicans, but Central and South Americans as well, and even Cubans and Puerto Ricans reside in the west coast. I've knew the fastest-growing Puerto Rican (and Cuban American) community is actually Palm Desert and Palm Springs, Cal. probably they became more upper-middle class or followed the path of other ethnic "white" groups known to live in the Coachella Valley Cal. in high numbers. (Irish, German, Italian, Polish, Jewish and Armenians).

But to be Puerto Rican in the US, even they are born/raised in America, they aren't treated fairly and disadvantaged from illegal subliminal acts of racial/ethnic discrimination, because they are "Hispanics"/"Latinos" and the often exagerated myth of Puerto Ricans, are "black people" but not all have African ancestry. 63.3.14.129 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality scale in project template

It was set to "A". Without getting into my own comments about it, this is incorrect because "B" is usually the highest quality given to an article without Peer-review or QA/FA evaluation. This article has not been subjected to any formal review, and hence setting it to "A" is highly unusual and frowned upon. Please do not restore to A until a formal review process determines that is indeed A level.

That said, this article suffers from a lack of sources, a lot of original research, and a certain lack of encyclopedic voice that make it a rather bad quality article by wikipedia policy and guidelines. Only reason I give it a B instead of a Start is because it is an extensive article, and some of the content is good. This article needs a good fix up, specially because of its importance to the project. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

!What?! Puerto Ricans a separate race?!

Puerto Ricans are not a separate race and this is as racist as saying the Jewish, or any other group from a country are such just because they come from that country. In Puerto Rico the breakdown is as follows: white (mostly Spanish origin) 80.5%, black 8%, Amerindian 0.4%, Asian 0.2%, mixed and other 10.9% [[1]] "Referencing "The CIA World Fact Book" The OFFICIAL Puerto Rican Census and the OFFICIAL United States census for the Puerto Ricans in the U.S. recognizes them NOT as a separate race, but either as a White Hispanic, Black Hispanic, Native American Hispanic or Asian Hispanic. This should be corrected as soon as possible to avoid being targeted by hate groups. Isolating Puerto Ricans as a separate race is outrageous just because their primary language is Spanish, (only in Puerto Rico at that)or because their culture is different (mainly in Puerto Rico). Just about everyone who migrated to the continental U.S. spoke a different language and had different customs in their home countries. To single out Puerto Ricans or just Spanish speakers is pure discrimination.70.5.241.54 23:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Puerto Rican Labour Migration

Hi all! I am a student at the University of Toronto, and as a part of the term project, my group, Latin America, are to add or edited existing pages on Wikipedia. My interest in the Puerto Rican Diaspora, has allowed me to focus on Puerto Rican Migration to the United States, the grander scheme being typically labour migration. I thought this posting could be of swome value to the article. If there are any suggestions or concerns, could you please let me know before deleting it. Thank you!--domenicdemasi (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rican American: Ricky Martin?

The infobox includes Ricky Martin as a Puerto Rican American. Someone please explain why before I take it off. The other three mentioned are OK since they were not born in Puerto Rico but have Puerto Rican heritage. Ricky Martin was born in Puerto Rico. ~RayLast «Talk!» 18:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because like any other 'X American' ethnonym, it applies to people who are long-term residents of the US, not just the native-born. SamEV (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Puerto Rican-American is the term used for Puerto Ricans born in the United States, it is not correct to label someone as such just because they have lived in the US for a while, in the same manner that Puerto Ricans living in other countries aren't refered to as Puerto Rican-[country's nationality]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My point exactly. ~RayLast «Talk!» 13:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm 100% sure, Aristophanes.
Sorry I missed your replies till now. That happens often to me.
I remind everyone that because you can't write just what you think is the definition of Puerto Rican American, you have to rely on reliable sources. The article gives this source, which states as follows: "Because of the Puerto Rico's commonwealth status, Puerto Ricans are born as natural American citizens. Therefore all Puerto Ricans, whether born on the island or the mainland, are Puerto Rican Americans ... Since Puerto Ricans are American citizens, they are considered U.S. migrants as opposed to foreign immigrants."
Even more, per the current title of this article, it is outright baffling that any island-born Puerto Rican should be excluded, as the title, if anything, could be interpreted to mean 'people from Puerto Rico in the United States'; after all, what on earth is a "Puerto Rican" if not someone BORN in Puerto Rico, to Puerto Rican parents?!
Above all, the Census Bureau, on whose data this article relies, includes under the rubric of "Puerto Rican" all people who indicate this ancestry, whether they were island- or stateside-born, and considers them all to be native-born Americans: "The Foreign Born were not U.S. citizens at birth. Natives were born in the United States or a U.S. Island Area such as Puerto Rico, or born abroad of a U.S. citizen parent.")[2]
Another problem is this: the definition implies that "Stateside Puerto Ricans" means "Stateside-born Puerto Ricans", and similarly for "mainland Puerto Ricans". If you want this article to be solely about mainland (or Stateside)-born Puerto Ricans, then change its title to "Mainland (or Stateside)-born Puerto Ricans". SamEV (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just feel that people that have lived outside the 50 U.S states are not "American" nationality, even if they live there and basically feel that ricky martin isnt a good example of being PR-American & didnt leave PR till he was 18 and had to learn english as a "second language", even thought its co-official. Noone ever calls him and "American singer". The 'United States territory' issue doesnt help. In this YouTube clip one girl even clearly states that she feels not american but Puerto Rican, about 2mins in. YouTube:Puerto Rico: The 51st State? 217.42.140.115 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Such anecdotal, non-expert opinions are not what good articles are made of. SamEV (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Calling anyone a Puerto Rican American is redundant given the fact that anyone born in Puerto Rico is automatically a US citizen and therefore an "American". You're all making a distinction where one doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.249.7 (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic tone

The article as a whole has a highly unencyclopedic tone, seeming to be trying to make a point and ending with a recommendation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Puertorican or American or Puerto Rican American

I see some users are edit warring and changing the person's affiliatetion from Puertorican to American as with Alexis Ríos. I have assumed WP:BOLD and have changed on the article to Puerto Rican American, which means Purtarican heritage but born in America. Can I recommend that the rest of the articles have Puerto Rican American in them as well, because it is more appropriate for everyone conserned and WP:NPOV Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense to anyone, but this article should be called Puerto Rican American. Kingturtle (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the title has been like this for a long time and should be the same as all the other "nationality"-American articles, this is to distinct the ones born in the 50 U.S states to an outside territory like PR, which doesnt use english as its mother tongue. It seems that in the US this is common to refer to one another with the first nationality like, Cuban, Irish,Italian etc.. especialy if theyre 2nd+ generation, even if they are born in the US, this still should be the same as all the other articles, its no different really. oh and i doubt many native-Puerto ricans call themselves 'american' often. Also why isnt there a "List of Puerto Rican Americans" like cubans etc..there is a distiction between the island ones and ones like Jennifer lopez who is not puerto rican but american like her twins.Sevillano (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Puerto Rican American? Who wrote this? Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory so all people in Puerto Rico are United States citizens, therefore U.S. Americans. Two the official languages of Puerto Rico are both English and Spanish. Third, American it self means from the the Americas is only a racist anglo American view that think they are the only americans in this side of the hemisphere. The Puerto Rican situation is the best example of how a group is alienated as a 2nd class citizens even as U.S. citizens since 1917. People like Jenifer lopez are called Puerto Ricans when she was born and raised in New York city,however because people in the United States are called by their families origin they themselves call themselves the same only to be disolution or alienated when interacting with people who are really from that place.To be politically correct the proper term i.s Americans of U.S. citizenship born in the common wealth of Puerto Rico. Race has always been a factor and how Latin American cultures differ from Anglo American views. In Latin America you are white if you look white while in the United states you must be white 100 percent. Thats why Puerto Ricans in the Islan feel white while even a blond puerto rican in the states calls himself light skin and rarely white. Puerto Ricans are heavily stereotyped even do there are many actors in the media who share the background. The problem is that even do there are many Puerto Rican actors they almost never play Puerto Rican parts. If they are white in features they play non hispanic and if they have dark completions they play foreigners never U.S. citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kings rhapsody (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the term Americans of U.S. citizenship born in the common wealth of Puerto Rico (Puerto Ricans) is more accureate and conveys more respect. How is it that Puerto Ricans which are born Americans are the ONLY group that has the term American omitted. Who changed this anyway and why? EDGARR (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Self isolation. Puerto Ricans and those of PR ancestry have done it to ourselves. It is up to us to identify as American. Puerto Rico is not a country and never was one. An unincorporated American territory once part of the greater Spanish empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.1.37 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove misinformation from the article!!!

Please, remove all wrong or inaccurate information from the article. Especially the "unincorporated territory" thing, myth, and others alike. Neither they have fundamental principles on US Constitution nor on official Congress documentation.

--Portorricensis (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox images

The images are all of living people. How about including some more historic figures? Kingturtle (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox should only have images of people with 100% Puerto Rican ancestry. Jimmy Smits and Ana Ortiz are only half Puerto Rican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.235.77 (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed text fragment

I made a small removal basically touting the article as the most up-to-date source about all things Puerto Rican...it sounded like a tourism ad. The tone of the article is completely inappropriate. -- ₪ Amused Repose Converse! 17:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


Some Other Race

The 2010 US Census has to include the "Some Other Race" concept in the Multiracial category, as it means being Multiracial.--81.37.39.152 (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Asian, Black, White and Multiracial should be the only options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.1.37 (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Poorly integrated reference

I eliminated this reference (http://www.topuertorico.org/government.shtml) in first paragraph because it was poorly integrated and not complete. Feel free to expand and reintegrate. [1]--Lawrlafo (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Important Report

The Institute of Statistic have released a report that research the migration of the Puerto Ricans to the US.

Here is full (Spanish): http://www.estadisticas.gobierno.pr/iepr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=CDU5m_mehsk%3d&tabid=165 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.70.120 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Racial/ethnic issues faced by the Puerto Rican community in the US

Someone removed and altered the entry on the racial-ethnic identity issue, a strong one but a matter of importance when the Puerto Rican community in the mainland U.S. formed and how this type of racism kept Puerto Ricans in a difficult socioeconomic position.

Although the U.S. Census shows that the majority of Puerto Ricans have self-described themselves as "white", they are essentially an amalgam of cultures stemming from various parts of the world and, thus, not "white".

The racial identification issue of Puerto Ricans in the U.S. is controversial and heatly debated, a cause of ethnic prejudice towards Puerto Ricans and also between those living Stateside and on the Island.

For a long time, an exaggerated image and perception of Puerto Ricans are "black" is a sign of some partial African racial mixture as a result of nearly 400 years of slavery in the island and Afro-Caribbean influences in Puerto Rican culture, and when most Puerto Ricans arrived in the U.S. esp. in New York City in the early 20th century, the majority of them settled down in the predominantly African-American neighborhoods of Harlem, Manhattan.

When the first Puerto Ricans arrived in the 1920's and 30's, the law stated they were "white" but to have any African ancestry like another law at the time the One drop rule declared any American even if the person was white with evident African or "black" ancestors were automatically declared "black" by law.

In New York City, there's an urban black working class element mentality in the Puerto Rican community, whom aren't entirely part of the African-American experience, but many had passed for "black" due to the inner-city environment around them and the second generation Nuyoricans were treated as an ethno-racial minority apart from white Anglos in the racially divisive late half of the 20th century.

Puerto Ricans in the mainland U.S. echoes more of European immigrants, as well of that in the historic migratory pattern of African-Americans (see the Great Migration) moved out of the Southern into Northern states and Asian-Americans from West to East coasts, and my own comparison to the socioeconomic and sociocultural issues faced by mostly white and Amerindian migrants known as Okies from Oklahoma a continental U.S. state in the Great Depression and World War II period, whom went westward to California. 71.102.3.122 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also to add Puerto Ricans have been growing in every socio-economic strata. Especially moderate to affluent incomes. Puerto Ricans are seen as predominantly affluent West of the Mississippi, in Florida, and the suburbs of the major NE cities. Even in NYC PR's can be found in a wide range of socioeconomic conditions. From the poorest public housing developments in the Bronx to the most expensive luxury condo developments in Manhattan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.1.37 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of stateside

In the section "Demographics of stateside Puerto Ricans" in Puerto Ricans in the United States, should the table titled "Race by Puerto Rican national origin" combine the categories "Mixed" and "One Race, but some other race" into "Mixed & Other", or keep them separate as the source (US Census Bureau) that collected and presented the data did? 07:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The chart and text are very mistaken. 36.7% of Puerto Rican's did not identify as mixed. Approximately 27.8% identified as being of one race, but other than those listed and approximately 8.7% identified as being of two or more races. It appears that the author of the text and creator of the chart may have combined those two categories and then smudged the numbers a little. (Y26Z3 (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC))

I would recommend keeping the stats as published from the source - until a better source can be found (in your opinion). The creator of the chart may well have "fudged" the numbers in your view - but changing the numbers without a published source is original research against wiki guidelines. Furthermore - the concept of a "Puetro Rican "Race" is a bit of a misnomer and nebulous as well - as according to the Puerto Rican Govt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_people - you are a "Puerto Rican" if you were born on the Island or have at least one parent who was born on the island....Patriot1010 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Impossible to migrate from Puerto Rico to United States

It is impossible to migrate from Puerto Rico to the United States because if you are in Puerto Rico you are already in the United States. It's as silly as suggesting someone could migrate from Nantucket to the United States. The lead is very misleading and gives the impression Puerto Rico is, from an American perspective, a foreign country. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Puerto Rico is not technically part of the United States (Balzac v. Porto Rico) hence they can be termed migrants such as anyone from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. As unicorporated territory, they are under U.S. control and immigration, but are technically conditional U.S. citizens (except those from American Samoa, who are in fact nationals). The U.S. Constitution only mentions the powers of states, and since no one knew back in 1789 that the U.S. would acquire territories, laws providing citizenship and other powers were given to the territories by an act of Congress. Puerto Ricans on the island don't vote in Presidential elections, but if they move to the mainland, they can. Hence they are migrants.--XLR8TION (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Migrant" is not a legal term. And while the way in which some laws and constitutional provisions may be different in how they apply to Puerto Rico compared to a state or one of the other areas under US control, like the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico certainly isn't a foreign country. Considering that under present law a Puerto Rican who wants to move to a state can just do it, but a Puerto Rican who wants to move to a foreign country must apply through that country's immigration process, the term "migrant" comes much closer to not applying to a Puerto Rican moving to a state than applying. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Puerto Ricans prior to 1917 required paperwork to migrate to the states. The term migrant is proper for anyone moving from unicorporated territory into the U.S. The international community still views Puerto Rico as a self-governing dependency with an unresolved political status, and many Puerto Ricans have acquired Puerto Rican citizenship. Some have renounced their U.S. Citizenship in protest. The difference between New Jersey and New York is they are states. Puerto Rico is not. Not a single star on the U.S. flag represents the island, and therefore as conditional U.S. citizens, the term migrant is proper to use in this artice.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like this issue is resolved but in case it brews up again I feel it worth pointing out using the terms migrant and migration in reference to internal migration is hardly unheard of, e.g. Migration in the People's Republic of China, Transmigration program. Note that these don't require government limitations/controls on internal migration, while the first case has them, the second case does not. Our own Migrant worker article mentions the possibility of internal migration and gives examples in the US outside Puerto Rico. Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I just wanted to point out I wasn't intending to comment on the appropriateness of the term in this particular instance, usage of the term will need to consider various factors. I was simply trying to point out the term does have a wider meaning which includes internal migration. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

POV infobox

I am concerned that, as of this posting, that the individuals who are represented in the infobox create a biased POV, as it only includes elected officials of one political party (the Democrat Party) and in doing so gives undue weight politically to that party by not including due weight notable Puerto Ricans of other political parties. Therefore, I shall tag the article accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This infobox is about Puerto Ricans in the United States, NOT politics or politcians. Your absurd claim that it is biased is biased to one party is not only baseless, but a waste of time. Please spew your right ring-phobia elsewhere. --XLR8TION (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The above shows a lack of good faith regarding my concern. The infobox presently includes two Puerto Rican elected representatives, and one judge. Both elected representatives are a member of a single party, and therefore presents an undue weight towards one side of the diverse political spectrum that Puerto Ricans may fall into.
The ad hominem statement:

Please spew your right ring-phobia elsewhere.

— XLR8TION
This did not advance this discussion in a civil manor and reflects poorly upon the editor who made the statement.
There are multiple solutions to this issue, including adding balanced representation in the infobox, to creating balance by removing politicians and political appointees from the infobox altogether.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Per BRD, I am not going to be readding the tag, but will notify related WPs per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The "right ring-phobia [sic]" comment is certainly inappropriate. Please, no further ad hominem attacks, they create needless drama and move the focus from editors discussing content to editors discussing and insulting editors. On the issue of NPOV and the selection of prominent Puerto Ricans in the infobox, RCLC, I don't get the same impression. There are six men and three women included; does this mean we have an NPOV gender bias here? I think it more likely instead that these individuals were selected based on their prominence in the U.S. Puerto Rican population. There are two politicians in the list and yes they are both happen to be Democrats, but one is a congressperson and the other is a former Miami Mayor who isn't currently an elected official. If you think there is a more prominent Puerto Rican politician, someone who is better known who should replace one of the existing ones, please make suggestions so that other editors can consider the comparable levels of prominence and maybe make a substitution. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How about the following:
  1. Luis Fortuño, the Commonwealth's present governor and former residential commissioner
  2. Herman Badillo, the first Puerto Rican to serve in the U.S. Congress
  3. Oscar Garcia Rivera, Sr., the first elected Puerto Rican in CONUS
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
You've sought out candidates who have "firsts" in their political resumes... that's good! I'd be happy to support any of them as a substitution on that basis; other editors of course may have their own opinions but I think a little compromise is warranted here to help avoid the appearance of political bias. I do see a potential aesthetic problem, however, with regard to the infobox using all color photos, none of which are head shots. This is probably not an accident, as the photos were likely selected to look lively and show some personality. I'm not trying to move the goal posts on you here, I'm just guessing other editors here won't be agreeable to a long term replacement solution if the substitution candidate doesn't have a photo that fits in (i.e., matches with the others). Candidate #1 doesn't have a photo in their infobox, Candidate #2 has a black and white (best image of the three but still doesn't really fit in), and Candidate #3 has a very poor resolution black and white photo. Before proposing one of these candidates officially replace one of the existing ones, do you want to 1) see if you can actually find a color photo of that individual to use and/or import it to Wikimedia, or 2) consider another potentially candidate entirely who has a good photo to add to the aesthetic? If you find a person that is actually less prominent that the three you've already presented (maybe no "political firsts") but he or she has a good color photo to contribute, IMHO I think that would be even better choice. Your thoughts? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the photos need to be color, as if they are historical figures, color photos may not readily exist. If anything a non-color photo may show that the subject is a historic figure, important to the subject as an early individual who increased the notable of the subject within its scope. Another possible solution is to have no politicians at all.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, there are TONS of photos available at WikiCommons for Luis Fortuño. Additionally, the recent political related images of notable individuals in the infobox can be said to be slanted towards recently notable individuals. Therefore by adding historical figures it will help balance the infobox. I have worked on the infobox at Filipino Americans, and have attempted to do my best to be inclusive of historical figures in the infobox (when an image is available).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy that I know of that requires the photos to be in color and/or mesh well with the others, but I think you're going to encounter greater difficulty in your efforts to propose a substitution if the aesthetic is degraded rather than maintained or enhanced. Just my two cents, you're free to reject it!  :) I'm going to take a back seat to any selection made here in that regard as the figurehead choices are not of significant concern to me and I don't want to become embroiled in a situation where editors battle over the choices. If you want to go ahead and propose a particular substitution, I'd recommend doing so and working it out with those who are keenly interested in it. --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • First of all DO NOT WRITE on my Talk page. I addressed my concerns on this page, you should do the same. One more edit of my talk page will be reported as vandalism. Number two, please spew your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Puerto Ricans vote mainly Democratic. This is a fact and not fiction. Instead of watching FOX News, I suggest picking up a book on Puerto Ricans in the U.S. to understand their political leanings. Your claims REMAIN absurd and I have notify other prominent Puerto Rican history editors on this site of your pooppycock claims. They all agree your claims are absurd and baseless.--XLR8TION (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Observation: XLR8TION's contribution list does not show any notifications to other editors about this issue. Probably a good thing, otherwise there would be a WP:CANVASS problem to add to the WP:UNCIVIL issue. The best way to deal with incivility is to ignore it and stay focused on the content at issue. --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Incivility being directed toward myself is not conductive toward the discussion about content regarding notable individuals in the infobox. If the editor who is being uncivil wishes not to be appropriately warned, perhaps may I suggest reading WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL.
Presently the individuals in the infobox tend to be of more recent notable individuals, this thus meets WP:RECENTISM, and perhaps by adding more historic individuals that fall within this article's scope it will help to create a more balanced infobox.
Additionally, the question as to the balance of the politicians in the infobox has only been met with ad hominem attacks, and no reliable sources have been presented to support statements about Puerto Ricans voting mainly for Democrats. Even if this is the case, it does not provide a balanced and inclusive infobox that includes Puerto Rican politicans who are not Democrats. To exclude them would create an infobox that is bias and thus does not keep with WP:NEU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Incivility? What about stupidity? You suggested adding Luis Fortuno when in fact he DOES NOT live in the U.S. The article is about mainland Puerto Ricans. Do you read articles at all? I have contacted other editors on Puerto Rican articles to contribute to this discussion. Please refrain from adding and POV to article as it will be removed. Please continue discussion on this page and ONLY on this page and refrain from putting words in my mouth. --XLR8TION (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as it. RightCowLeftCoast, I had not noticed that - until you pointed it out. But, by the same token, Is there a fair number of Jewish Puerto Ricans, Hindu Puerto Ricans, Muslim Puerto Ricans, etc., in the infobox in question, or are they all Christians? Based on your implied conspiracy theory, maybe the article could also biased in favor of Christians! Have you stopped to consider that if there is any Democratic Party majority in the infobox that it may be the result of Puerto Ricans in the US voting mostly Democrat? So, no, I don't agree with any your initial POV accussations. And, BTW, I come here with no political agenda as I happen to be neither Democrat nor Republican. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Observation: This morning, Mercy11 was WP:CANVASSED by XLR8TION with this request, using the following excerpted language: "Please add your opinion on the talk page... ...A right-wing Filipino is trying to cause problems to the photos... because of his right wing views... ...he is trying to create a divisive faction in the community... ...Please contribute your opinions to the article's talk page to dispel his absurdness...". From the link: "Canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." XLR8TION posted the same requests on the pages of Marine 69-71, Puertorriquenosoy, and Pr4ever as well. --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I posted requests for opinions to people familiar with Puerto Rican identity. This article is about the history of Puerto Ricans in the United, NOT Puerto Rican politicians. Nydia Velazquez is notable as she is the first Puerto Rican woman elected to Congress. Sonia Sotomayor is the first Latina and Puerto Rican to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor is to remain politically neutral on the court and she is appointed and is not elected on a party platform. Rep. Velasquez is a female pioneer who is in the article as she is from the mainland (unlike Luis Fortuno) and she broke barriers for all women by simply being elected to Congress. Leave politics alone and stop dividing communities with absurd claims.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
AzureCitizen, let's not play the Canvass card, a defense accussation tactic often used by frustated editors whose discussions are not moving "their way". You are misinterpreting the Canvass guideline. The statement "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus," was placed at the very beginning of that guideline for editors who, just like you, seek to gain a discussion advantage by glorifying the details of that guideline yet miss its intended message. This matter will be decided on its own merits, not on the frustation of editors, whether in favor of the claim or against it. So please read the guideline more carefully. Your "Observation" above is an insult to the intelligence of other editors who, like myself, act on messages based on their own individual merits and not on whether or not the sender makes value judgment statements in either direction. So maybe you would care to respond to the merits of my Keep position, instead of harboring yourself on the merits of a message posted on my page. Attempting to divert attention and entirely ignoring the merits of my Keep response while mounting a defense only on some admnistrative basis that is not even policy is no defense at all. We are here to discuss the merits of the POV infobox, a policy bearing matter, and nothing else. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
You may have missed my post up above where I said that I wasn't going to get involved with regard to selecting potential substitutions, it's not of significant concern to me, and that I don't want to become embroiled in a situation where editors battle over the choices. I am not "frustated that the discussion is not moving my way"; I made the observation about inappropriate canvassing to make sure it's a known quantity here. As you clearly disagree with this, I'll refer it to a noticeboard for others to decide if the canvassing is appropriate or inappropriate. Respectfully, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is the determination that it was inappropriate canvassing: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents WP:CANVASS issue. Additionally, guidance was provided on how to avoid this sort of problem in the future. --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Change per suggestion nominated. Puerto Ricans are found in both major US political parties. Since this issue has been discovered, there is no reason not to fix it. --Nouniquenames 15:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep my reasons are justified in previous edits. Insulting to see politics and right wingers denigrate female Puerto Ricans simply due to his political affiliations (see users talk page).--XLR8TION (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Questions: These questions are for RightCowLeftCoast, the editor who brought up the accussation of POV in the infobox:
    • (1) I see you started this section with the claim "I am concerned that, as of this posting..." However, when I compare what you call this POSTING (which was made by XLR8TION) with the posting immediately before and found HERE (and which was made by anonymous IP user 24.193.10.66), I notice that there is no difference in the two infoboxes, they are identical. This is more clearly seen with the diff version available HERE. Could you then clarify why you singled out that particular posting?
    • (2)To help everyone get to the bottom of this: You have also made the accussation that the infobox "only includes elected officials of one political party (the Democrat Party)". In effect you are saying that

are all Democrats. The assumption I made (and probably it was a bad one) was that you checked the party affiliation of each and everyone of those 9 people above, and found conclusive evidence that they were, in fact, all Democrats. However, you have already been refuted above in that accussation, with equally contradicting claims that they are NOT ALL Democrats. Can you back up your claim with sources that categorically state that each one of the 9 individuals above are indeed members of the Democratic Party? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

If you read the comments near the top of the thread, you'll see that RCLC was talking about "two Puerto Rican elected representatives and one judge". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course, but if we read the infobox it listed 9 people, not 3. We should be informed fully, not partially, so as to dispel upfront the possibility of cherry-picking bias in the infobox POV accussation. Don't you agree? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • Comment - I believe that it was absurd to bring up the infobox discussion based on politics. However, I must admit that I am glad that the infobox issue was taken into account because quite frankly I do not like the fact that it seems to stereotype Puerto Ricans as if their main contributions to American society has been mostly as entertainers. What about the Puerto Ricans who have made contributions and excelled in the fields of science, military, education and so on? Changing this type of mentality is what inspired me to become a writer for Wikipedia in the first place. I have made some changes to the infobox which I hope will be a balanced representation of the contribution which the Puerto Ricans in the United States have made to different fields. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Nicely done, Tony... with one deft edit, you've managed to fix both problems. Now there is only one bona fide politician, and as the first Puerto Rican woman elected to Congress, she was always the ideal candidate to be retained in my opinion. The over abundance of entertainers needed addressing all along but nobody thought to bring it up; now there is a diversity of important civic professions. Everybody happy now?  :) AzureCitizen (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I too believe it was absurd, and as such, I could care less who is included: Politics has never been my motivation in these discussions, and my view has been that if anyone did some digging and picked on politics, then it is that editor who is acting in poor wp:good faith. In a sense, however, with the 2012 elections just a month away, it is understandable that some editors could end up, even in apparent good faith, politizing the encyclopedia. In any event, now that the other canvass distraction is over, it is good to see we can hopefully bring this segment here to a close also. I don't know what party the other 9 guys were from, and I don't know what party these new 9 guys are from either (not all 9 are new, but the idea is there... like when you get a "new" car because it's new to you but it's actually 7 or 10 years old, get it???) And I could care less because the people included should be included because they are all prominent Puerto Ricans in the U.S., and not because they are all prominent Puerto Ricans in the US that are Catholics, or all prominent Puerto Ricans in the US that are millionaires, or all prominent Puerto Ricans in the US that were raised in a single mother home...or all (ñif, ñif, ñif) prominent Puerto Ricans in the US that are Democrats or Republicans or Communists or Independents. Bringing up this topic at all, imo, was in such bad taste, I am still nodding my head in disbelief. In disbelief, in particular, because it was brought up by a seasoned Wikipedia editor. To repeat, I am fine with these new 9 individuals. However, to address your question, I cannot see how anyone could be "happy" when the journey was the result of such sad, poor taste, poor judgement, POV Infobox accussation. This, I believe, was the message that XLR8TION was trying to get across (whether he was using the right or the wrong approach, that's another matter that was already dealt with). XLR8TION displayed poor judgement in his reaction, but so did RightCowLeftCoast to begin with. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I am sorry that others do not have good faith in the concern that I have brought up. As with what has been said by Tony the Marine, I too believe that the infobox images should represent the wide range of notable individuals which a subject represents. I also believe that the infobox should not push any WP:POV, and provide WP:BALANCE. Diversifying the infobox to include notable individuals within the scope of this subject to include more individuals notable outside of the entertainment field was a very good start IMHO. I understand that other editors may have had past history where they have disagreed with me, and I hope that that history does not negatively or positively effect how my concerns are viewed. That being said, I for one believe that if politicians represented in infoboxes that a balanced (and thus more inclusive) approach is always the best approach; the other solution is to not include politicians at all as to avoid any political imbalance that may create a bias POV.
Additionally, let me commend the edit by Tony the Marine, in that it removed an imbalance that previously existed that favored more recent notable individuals.
Although others may find pointing out the imbalance that had been present in the political field in the infobox as being distasteful, that does not mean that the imbalance did not exist; additionally, limiting down to a single politician also has an odd way of maintaining the previous imbalance in that field of notability. Therefore, may I suggest a compromise:
Increase the number of people in the infobox to 12, allowing the historically notable Oscar Garcia Rivera, Sr. as well as retaining Nydia Velázquez to be included in the infobox.
Within the political realm of notability, that provides a balance between the two major political parties in the United States as well as a balance between a historically notable Puerto Rican Politician, and a currently notable Puerto Rican Politician. This additionally leaves 2 additional slots open, to add two new fields of notability individuals in two fields presently not represented.
I did not take into account the political affiliations of others in the infobox other than those who were political appointees or politicians. Other individuals are not primarily notable for their politics, and thus their political affiliation is not what those individuals are generally notable for. Political appointees and/or Politicians are primarily notable for their politics and political topic opinions and political party affiliations. As Associate Justice Sotomayor is such a significant first for Puerto Ricans (as well as Hispanic/Latinos) I believe she constitutes her own field of notability (judges & magistrates) separate from politicians. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Being distasteful represented poor judgment and, granted, it may not be breaking any policy or guideline. But by shying away from categorically identifying the the political party of each of the 9 original individuals (by original here I mean pre-Tony), as you were asked to do above, you are not helping your cause. Your POV + IMBALANCE + UNDUE WEIGHT or other related accusations above, are very serious charges, but so far you have failed to substantiate your POV accusation with hard facts that, in the Wikipedia tradition, can be independently verified WP:V by the rest of us. As such, you are incorrect in your statement above that an imbalance exists because you have failed to show such imbalance other than pointing that the 2 of 2 elected officials were Democrats. The "2 of 2 are Democrats" is something than in and of itself was not POV since (see below) statistically 2 of 2 Puerto Ricans vote Democrat and (statistically again) 0 of 2 Puerto Ricans vote Republican. That is, you need a sampling of, at least, 3 Puerto Ricans to -- statistically -- start to approach the point where you can say that 1 of 3 Puerto Ricans vote Republican - thus it is actually closer to 1 in 4, that's the idea.
On several occasions above, and again now, you have quite assertively accussed others (both by specific name and "others" in the generality of the word) of not acting in good faith, yet you seem to miss that a group of editors here have pointed out the distastefulness, absurdity, and baselessness of your POV Infobox claim - and which has dragged everyone here to this disruption of the building of the encyclopedia. However, and let me be perfectly clear on this, your action of bringing up this POV infobox accussation is not -as you claimed above- simply an innocuous "concern" that you were raising. Let's make no mistake: you broke the WP:Good faith behavioral guideline, both by asumming that others acted in bad faith when they created the Infobox, as well as by accusing others of having created an Infobox that was purposedly, intentionally, and maliciously gerrymandered to include members of the Democratic Party, and ONLY members of the Democratic party. No such conspiracy existed. After having lit a fire and displayed a horrendous lack of good faith yourself in bringing on the accusation of Infobox POV, you have had the courage of accusing others of lack of wp:good faith. This lack of clean hands leaves little room for sympathy towards your claim, at least from my perspective.
For example, you have been taken to task for not performing at least the minimal level of homework required to share with us HOW you ended up concluding that all 9 original individuals are indeed members of the Democratic party. In this area, your response so far has been: SILENCE. This tactic of "SILENCE" is doing a lot in helping me move against supporting your claim, RightCowLeftCoast, and very little in favor of changing my "Keep-as-is" position above. At best, and after "reading between the lines", I am starting to believe that your claim incorrectly identified your real concern: maybe your concern was not that the 9 individuals were ALL Democrats, but that the 2 elected officials were BOTH Democrats (something that would be a non-issue anyway, See below.). If this is the case, you never articulated it that way (or that clearly), and has lead to considerable needless arguments back and forth. And if this is the case, it would also explain your silence when challenged to provide WP:RS the party affiliation of all 9 individuals. Was that it?
In any event, you have so far failed to convince me that there exists any merit in the POV Infobox accusation that your claim makes for these other reasons as well:
  • (1) You have failed to provide evidence that the party affiliation of the 9 original individuals was indeed Democrat so that we can independently verify your claim. Your response to this: SILENCE
  • (2) You incorrectly identified the Republican Luis Fortuño as a viable alternative to one of the 9 spots, reducing my credibility on your expertise on this subject since Luis Fortuño is not a Puerto Rican in the US. In effect, you left me thinking: Why should I listen to someone that fails so miserably on something so basic? Your response: SILENCE
  • (3) Your POV accusation was proven faulty in that what you called the "posting" in question (HERE) is in fact an edit which involves no changes relative to the party affiliation of the 9 individuals when compared to the previous edit. Your response to this: SILENCE
  • (4) You have so far failed to defend your position for need for "political balance" (where, presumably, the Republican party is accounted for in the infobox) in light of the fact that most Puerto Ricans vote Democrat anyway. Assuming that the 9 original individuals already include, say, 2 Republicans (which it probably already did any way) acting on your concern/claim/request would had represented a case of reverse imbalance, a situation where to satisfy your concern, the infobox would had required a number of Republicans larger that actually that which would represent an actual proportion of the Puerto Rican constituency (That number, btw, is currently 67% Democrat and 23% Republican, according to The Hill and based on late July polls by NBC News, The Wall Street Journal and Telemundo (see it HERE)). Doing the math, this would mean that, to avoid a reverse imbalance, 6 of the 9 spots there would need to be go to Democrats, 2 to Republicans, and 1 -must- go to an individual who is -neither- Democrat nor Republican. So, no, even in the best of cases 3 of the 9 spots (as you appeared to have implied above) cannot go to Republicans, but only 2 of the 9 can be Republicans.
  • (5) You have so far failed to demonstrate WHY there needs to be any sort of political party affiliation balance and not a religious balance, a gender balance, or any other type of category balance. This, too, has been raised by several editors above. Your response so far: SILENCE.
  • (6) You have failed to identify any party other than the Republican party despite your categorically clear use of the plural word political partie"S" in your POV accusation. Maybe you were trying to be audacious - I don't know - but fact is your 3 suggestions for replacements all appear to be Republicans.
  • (7) Your response to "Why worry about the political affiliation of the individuals in the infobox if this is not even a political article?" has so far been: SILENCE
  • (8) You continue to cherry-pick on Oscar Garcia Rivera, Sr.. Why is he more important than the ones currently in the infobox? Also, can you prove that adding Garcia Rivera is NOT going to take the Infobox above the 2 Republican party maximum that you can have. Why when everyone here wants to bring this POV Infobox matter down to a close with the 9 post-Tony individuals are you still insisting on Garcia Rivera?
  • (9) The request to go to 12 individuals in the Infobox, imo, represents poor judgment. Why do that when there are already objections with only 9 individuals? Let's not go down the 12-member road. Anyone that has gone thru this sort of exercise before knows that it is several-fold times more difficult to achieve consensus on just 1 additional (total of 10) individual, let alone 3 more. So, No, let's not go down that road: 9 is just fine.
  • (10) If your objection has been the political affiliation of the 2 politicians in the infobox, then one simple suggestion that could had been entertained was to eliminate all elected officials (just 2 according to our count anyway) that were in the original Infobox. What's your answer to this RightCowLeftCoast?
BTW, your association above of Tony's work with WP:RECENTISM is incorrect. The correct interpreation of the WP:RECENTISM essay, has to do with, for example, the effect that the 2012 U.S. Presidential election may have on editors, and nothing to do with Tony's recent edits. That WP:RECENTISM essay explains, for example, what I had pointed out above seemed to have been a motive why RightCowLeftCoast was bringing on this POV Infobox accusation. Please read that essay more carefully next time.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Please see WP:CIVIL & WP:AVOIDYOU
If good faith was assumed of my concern, when it was clear that some did not per the personal attacks that I was the target of, and if I was wrong in my opinion, then it could have been civilly pointed out rather than the uncivil lengthy rebuttal above.
That being said, to remove the tag is premature given that there is an active discussion. I was unable to quickly reply as real life obligations did not allow me to reply.
I made clear above why the political affiliations of non-politicians does not fall within the scope of my concerns, and I made a civil compromise proposal, which was ignored (up to this point). My I ask other active editors of their opinion of the compromise proposal?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, it appears that two editors support change (Nouniquenames, RightCowLeftCoast), and two editors do not support change (XLR8TION, Mercy11), therefore up to this point there is No consensus as to whether my concern has support. That is not to say that civil discussion cannot continue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure who here has an objection to the placement of the POV tag - I certainly don't. (For the record, I was not involved in either: its placement or its removal.) For uncivility complaints, one place to go is HERE. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
At this point I do not believe that ANI, or RfC, is necessary. However, thanks for pointing it out.
I stated why, before, the political affiliation of non-politicians is not within the scope of my concern. I proposed Luis Fortuño as an alternative due to the fact that he resided in the United States as the Residential Commissioner. As for the Hill poll that was linked to above, does this take into the historical voting record of the subject? Has the subject always had a large majority voting for one party or another? For instance, if this discussion was about African Americans should Joseph Rainey be excluded because the modern day majority of African Americans vote in majority for a party which Rainey isn't affiliated with? As with my previous statement why political affiliation of non-politicians do not fall within the scope of my concern, the religious affiliation of any individual in the infobox does not fall within the scope of my concern either. The primary reason for notability of those in the infobox are not the individuals religious affiliation, and was not part of my original concern, therefore whatever that affiliation maybe it is moot as far as I am concerned. Additionally, I did propose to side step the political bias of the infobox by proposing that politicians not be included in the infobox. If one were to read my past post, IMHO, than most of the questions posed to me in (what felt to me) to be in an antagonizing manor, would have been shown to have been answered.
If the compromise and consensus is for removal of all politicians from the infobox, I am sure that there is a notable individual who can take the place of the 9th position.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I would support removal of politicians altogether for reasons other than the fact that, statistically, a Republican cannot be assured a spot on the list of 9, but a Democrat can. The basis to include someone in the list should not be racially, religiously, politically, etc., motivated, and so far what I have seen is a political motivation - a political discrimination - to exclude prominent politicians because they happen to be Democrats. Example: If the Archbishop of New York City was a Puerto Rican, we wouldn't remove him from the list of 9 simply because he was Catholic and there wasn't a prominent, say, Jewish leader in the list. Likewise for gender, racial heritage, etc., of Puerto Ricans who may have excelled in (respectively) gender-based, racial-based, etc., organizations in the U.S. In so far as I have seen, the people in the list - including the politicians - are there because they excelled in their respective fields. I see no need of changing that, especially for politicians (argumentative basis: political affiliation) or women (argumentative basis: gender), or any such similarly motivated arguments. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I am not attempting to discriminate any notable individual based on political affiliation. Having a balance IMHO is tolerant, and inclusive of the wide variety of political affiliations individuals who fall within the scope of this subject may have. As I said, I do not know whether historically the subject of this article has always voted with party X or party Y, and given that political affiliations change over time, to only have an infobox with politicians that only adhere to recent political biases of the subject IMHO creates POV issues. Others may differ with my opinion, but that is my opinion. Thus, the two solutions that I had proposed. I additionally believe it is best to try to have a balance of women and men in an infobox so that way neither feminists or masculists do not tag the infobox for POV issues.
This is why I believe in an inclusive balance, or a subject exclusion within the infobox. The inclusive balance service to meet WP:BALANCE under NPOV, whereas exclusion sidesteps the issue entirely. Since Mercy11 and I appear to agree on a compromise of exclusion as a possible solution, I say we wait 5 days (14 OCT 2012) to see if others object, and if there are no objects, politicians be removed from the infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Even though I believe that this infobox issue was ridiculous (just an opinion) from the beginning, I have to admit that I do not mind the removal of politicians from the infobox. Therefore, in order to bring the discussion in the talk page to an end there will be no political nor religious figures in the infobox. I was once told, by a wise person, that "if a you wanted to conserve your friendship with others, you should never discuss politics and/or religion." Tony the Marine (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • For the record, I never said that I "agreed on a compromise of exclusion as a possible solution" without any qualifications. I was perfectly clear to qualify that with only if the exclusion of political figures was not politically motivated, and I added that "so far what I have seen is a political motivation - a political discrimination - to exclude prominent politicians because they happen to be Democrats". Claiming that I "agreed to a compromise of exclusion as a possible solution" is putting words in my mouth. I never said such thing.
So, for the record, I am not a party to this change made above by Tony. AFAIK, there was not sufficient support for RightCowLeftCoast's concerns -- at best there wasn't a consensus either way.
To recount a bit, the concern was that there were 2 Democrat politicians in the Infobox and 0 Republicans. Tony tacitly proposed a compromise that took into account Puerto Ricans' voting records, etc. As a result the number was dropped to 1 Democrat (and 0 Republicans). However, RightCowLeftCoast was still not satified, and now without any consensus, the number is further dropped to 0 Democrats (and 0 Republicans). This sort of forceful & dictatorial approach is not what Wikipedia is about.
I said it above and I repeat it again, RightCowLeftCoast never convinced me one iota that there existed any merit in his POV Infobox accusation. I wash my hands off all of this. If the Infobox was changed, first once, and now twice, it wasn't done because there was any consensus nor compromise - at least not one that was discussed and categorically established before the changes took place. So don't count me in on that.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC), and Ia pprove this message.

I am sick and tired of this discussion. I made some changes in good faith because I believed that I was doing the right thing. The problem here is that User: RightCowLeftCoast has created a mountain out of a mole hill out of this discussion. The infobox should represent an example of a Puerto Rican who has excelled in a certain field and should not have been turned into a political circus. So what if someone is democrat? Who cares? Are we then supposed to place a Republican only because there is a Democrat? For Christ sake, then let's place an image of an outlaw because we have an image of a law enforcement officer, or images of a basketball, Football and soccer player because we have an image of a baseball player. How about images of Puerto Rican Jews, Muslims and so on because we have an image of a Christian? I have seen this type of silly arguement in other articles. There are people who will never be satisfied regardless of what you do. You all can change the infobox back the way it was for all I care. I'm done with this and I'm out of here. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, and knew your motivations as well. I had actually started Wikipedia's follow-up proceedings, but some editors are just not worth our valuable time, which we can invest better in developing the encyclopedia. In the spirit of good faith (not that we didnt give him enough opportunities), RightCowLeftCoast would better not show up around here with further silly and distasteful, etc., arguments because, as a promise, I will then not hesitate to bring out the full extent of Wikipedia's arsenal, including Wikipedia's nuclear option. I've got plenty of time on my hands, so that's my promise of the week. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Puerto Ricans in the United States. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 03:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked All captures redirect to 404 captures. Can't find replacement copy online, so have added 'cbignore'. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Puerto Ricans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 03:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Puerto Ricans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Puerto Ricans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Puerto Ricans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Puerto Ricans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "government". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://www.topuertorico.org/government.shtml" ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stateside_Puerto_Ricans/Archive_1&oldid=1143389109"