Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/2016/April

My farewell

Hello everyone, this is Erick. I'm going through a loss in my family and it has a huge impact with my life. Before I began the Latin music project, I helped this project in regards to Puerto Rican music. I want to thank you for the support that I got when I was a new member of Wikipedia. Please continue to keep this project as great as ever in my absence. Erick (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Erick, I am sorry for your loss. I know how hard it is to lose someone we love. It is a shame that you are retring from this project because it seems to me that everyday we are losing, in Wikipedia, Puerto Rican editors who really care about the island and it's culture You are one of the best Boricua editors ever and I hope that in the future you reconsider coming back. My prayers are with you and may God bless you always and give you comfort during these your difficult moments. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Take care, bro. I am glad that we could work on a couple of articles in the past, you are one of the good ones. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Translation help, please

I've been doing a bit of reading on the Batería del Escambrón in Viejo San Juan, and as I am only moderately proficient in Spanish, I am struggling with the translation of escambrón. The Spanish Wikipedia disambiguation page makes clear that it can refer to several different species of flowering plant, but is there any one of those species (such as Crataegus monogyna, that would come into English as "hawthorn") that may be more associated with the word in Puerto Rico? Thanks for any help. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ipoellet: None of those, I'm afraid. The Spanish named that zone after the cambrón, so its most likely the pisonia aculeata, which is present in Puerto Rico. Otherwise it may be clerodendrum aculeatum or pithecellobium unguis-cati. The term is not used to describe any species in particular, but as an umbrella term for a variety of spiny shrubs. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Great information. Thank you. — Ipoellet (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

US territories tag

I am surprised to see that somebody mass tagged articles that have nothing to do with Puerto Rico's political status with this tag. Even those that deal with national sports team, which are by definition recognized as fully autonomous entities by the COI, have been tagged with this template. So have biographies of independentist leaders, artists, sports people and virtually everything that has a "WikiProject: Puerto Rico" template in its talk page. Clearly, the person that did this is unaware that ≈45% of the population belongs to a party that denies that Puerto Rico is a territory at all, which turns this into a potential powder keg. I propose that the tag is kept only in those that deal with politics or jurisdictions, since WP:PUR should be sufficient to cover biographies and other cultural/sports topics that fall outside them. 166.172.184.77 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with you and since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, I suggest and encourage you to remove the "tags" which have been improperly posted. When you do, go to the articles "talk page" and state your reasons for doing so. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hello! I removed a lot of them, but there are literally dozens if not hundreds of pages that were tagged within days by a user named Jaguar. It would take weeks or months to single handedly remove them from the irrelevant articles. So, I think that removing them with the same tool that he used and then re-adding the tag to the ones that are relevant is the best option. Also, I tried to explain to him that the territories are fully independent in sports matters as established by the IOC, but he responded by blanking his talk page! Maybe you could explain the political situation to him better than me? 166.172.187.27 (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well here's the thing, WikiProjects define their scope, if they say it's within their scope, then there's really not much you can do about it. If you feel those project banners should not placed on those articles, then you should bring it up on the US territorial project talk page and work things out. Here is their talk page. Erick (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I am with Erick on this. The User:Jaguar appears to have asked for opinions here. However, since PR fits well in no political category yet (it is so unique), an unplanned approach would confuse matters more. We would then be dismissed as impracticable or colonials who cannot understand their own condition of subordination (to foreign categories). So, why don't we set up the points here before taking them to Admin? Cheers, Historiador (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I am not arguing if the articles dealing with politics fall into the scope of a territorial WikiProject, probably those dealing with jurisdictions and municipalities do as well, but arts/sports/biographies do not. Including sports, and especially national teams, is an oxymoron due to the existence of the sports sovereignty. I did not take it to Admin, I took it to Jaguar's talk page and he ignored me; deleted my comment under the excuse that he was "archiving" (he did not "archive" my comment at all), failed to answer and continued. Only then did I take things here (still not Admin). The truth is that not only did Jaguar ignore me, but he never asked any of you either and he is clearly not familiar with how things work in the territories. Also, I don't think that he is even evaluating if a certain article really falls in the scope of that project, I believe that he is using some tool or bot to navigate articles within certain categories and then mass tagging with it. I would be very surprised if he even remembers what articles he tagged. 166.172.187.27 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Also, after reading that link it appears that Jaguar decided the scope of that WikiProject by himself. He certainly did not discuss it with the Puerto Ricans. Did he discuss it with the people from the UVI, Guam, etc.? 166.172.187.27 (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A Wikiproject's scope is dictated by active members of the WikiProject. Now granted, he is the only member listed, but as Historiador that is why he said is open to inputs on the WikiProject talk page. @Caballero1967:, yes you are right, we should make suggestions on their WikiProject's talk page. That said, the correct place to report an issue with a WikiProject is at WikiProject Council as Jaguar isn't exactly violating any core policies here. Erick (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• He is ignoring feedback on his talk page. I already left a message at that project's talk page, but I doubt that he will listen to me after erasing my message without even acknowledging it. You do have a say when it comes to preventing controversy in articles within your scope, you are organized, whereas that project is a one man band. Also, Historiador, it does not really matter what any of us think of the colonialist faction led by Rafael Hernandez Colon, the fact remains that they are half of one mayority party and they will spam you with federal cases as precedent to "prove" that the Commonwealth is not subjected to the territorial clause. Sure, the cases are from the 1970s and the policy of the US has changed since then, but do you think that will prevent them from warring over these tags when they invariably come accross them in the top Google search options? If Puerto Ricans themselves can't really settle this issue on their own, I doubt that someone that seems unaware of the nature of the articles that he is tagging can. 166.172.187.27 (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, I get that you are frustrated with the current situation, but I'm going to ask that you remain civil. I doubt it was his intention to create controversy, these things happen. I'd like to point out that he also created WikiProjects for French territories and British territories so it's not limited to the US here. Also in regards to this part of this message: "but do you think that will prevent them from warring over these tags when they invariably come accross them in the top Google search options?" That's considered meatpuppetry and canvassing which is not allowed on Wikipedia. They have no power whatsoever to dictate what Wikipedia can and cannot do. See WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Erick (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

166.172.187.27 I think your proposal is clear and fair (as explained in the first paragraph). Somehow, it is already part of WP. And I don't think that PR's current political controversies will or should impinge on your request. @Magiciandude:, I get 166.172.187.27's frustration. And I think that their (non-gender pronoun) comments here are not ramblings nor a threat to civility. At least, not yet. In fact, they may just serve well to build the case for a fairer categorization of PR's position abroad-- so we Boricuas could wear our flag with pride and without fear of being called illegitimate. It would help if 166.172.187.27 would register and add all their IP's contributions to a WP working account. Perhaps it would make it a bit harder for "jaguar" and others to ignore their comments. Though we are not fairly represented yet, WP is such a diverse community that a step forward often requires lots of energy and time for others to get your point. But with a system inbuilt to break down local cacique's power, I am confident that 166.172.187.27's suggestions will be heard (does not mean they will act upon they way we think). It is in the areas of categorization and flameworking that systematic subordination is most subtle and yet more powerful. 166.172.187.27: Thanks for taking this up. Historiador (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well you're right, assuming good faith would be the right course of action. I do apologize. I'm just trying to prevent any potential all-out edit wars. Let's see what happens. Erick (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caballero1967:, found something interesting at WP:WPPRO: "If you do not have a group of people, then you do not have a WikiProject, even if you have created a page that is supposedly the place where that group discusses its work. A WikiProject is the people, not the page." Erick (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Erick, I did not mean to be incivil. The fact is that Jaguar intentionally ignored me, there is not way around it. I did not meant the comment about the "happy colonials" as confrontation either, there is a fairly large (several thousands) contingent of people that deny that Puerto Rico is a territory at all, and they claim to have legal precedent that proves it (legal cases are reliable sources, so they could very well try to argue it). And, given their number, they don't have a need to do meatpuppetry, they can overwhelm with several people. My interest is to avoid the issue before it gets bigger, since we are entering electoral year and if AGP seeks reelection, he will argue that the Commonwealth is not territorial and so will his followers. When the leadership of somebody is dependent on something, the first thing that the followers will do is to reduce the visibility of that which opposes the leader's narrative. 166.172.184.242 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No I apologize for not assuming good faith. Wikipedia can do rangeblocks where several IPs can be blocked from editing and creating accounts. But looking back, according to WikiProject Council, it is a good idea to post a notice to related WikiProjects which of course didn't seem to happen. If you haven't already, you can also try leaving a message at Council talkpage if you feel it's an issue that needs a wider attention. If there's anything problems I can assist with, let me know. Erick (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Magiciandude Sorry for responding late. I was dragged unnecessarily into a dispute, which ended "With no action." It showed me me in real life what both of you are implying in your concerns: the litigious propensities in WP. Anyhow, Erick, are you referring to wikiprojects' need to have a group of people as a way of pulling the rug from the category/project that is tagging all PR's pages the same? On another subject, I am a bit puzzle about what seems 166.172.184.242's anxiety in putting a proposal or complaint forward. Could you explain? Thanks. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically, the Wikiproject's scope needs to be determine by its members and a WikiProject should not be created without getting enough people interested. Erick (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Magiciandude, 166.172.184.242, and everybody else: let's make the abstract tangible. What is (or could be) the current Wikiproject problem (jaguar) with the following articles, and how we would make it better?: Carelyn Cordero and San Juan Bay (this one fresh from the oven). I went through a lot of categorization this morning. It seems that the system increases in difficulty with the years. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I really don't care that much about tags, but I guess that the anon has a point when he mentions that we are considered an independent nation by the Olympic Committee, so adding a territories tag seems incredibly redundant in those. Also, since we are still waiting on the resolution of ELA vs. Sánchez Valle, it may be prudent to keep the tags off for the time being since SCOTUS may actually rule that PR is an "associated free state, literally" (as Sotomayor, quite oddly, argued in USA Today) or something even weirder, that we sit between a "common" territory and a state (in some sort of limbo). We have no way of knowing what will come out of there. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Which Sotomayor are you referring to? The dear Judge or the author of this recent book? Which, by the way, is relevant to this discussion. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 15:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Historiador, I took the liberty of moving that ( ↑) comment here, since it appears more relevant to this particular conversation. I was referring to the comments made by judge Sotomayor in this article. Although that book is intriguing. Do you have access to a copy? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(←) So... What is the final tally here? We wait for the case to end? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

About our depictions of the Taíno and the reliability of some historians...

History is written by the victors...

— Walter Benjamin

Hello, I want to discuss something that has been bothering me since I first came across the Diego Salcedo article and noticed that he was described as (only) "semi"-legendary. Lately I have been working with a (still unpublished) piece about the Taíno and in the process came across a few pages that both cite it as historic and which incorporate several mythical figures in the narrative as well. These include several caciques that did not exist as far as the documentation states and even the purported name of Agüeybana's sister.

Professor Jalil Sued Badillo of the UPR is insistent that the work of Cayetano Coll y Toste, Luis Llorens Torres, Salvador Tió and Salvador Brau should not be used in topics that preceded their life times. He argued that the first two published fiction as history, and that the others relied on unofficial and sometimes third or four hand accounts of the events without rummaging trough the relevant historic documentation...

And I agree with him. Why? Because these are exactly the same names that appeared when I was working on the Roberto Cofresí series and the contradictions and, well, made up parts were pretty obvious when confronted with the historical documents (to the point that I was forced to begin a "popular culture" piece to accommodate it). And these inconsistencies were not only in relation to the perception of these figures, but also included events in their respective lives that are well documented and which contradict the narrative of the authors. A few quick examples:

• 1- The Taíno looked up to the Spaniards as gods. This is not supported in any of the historic documents that deal with Puerto Rico and it it's likely an exaggeration on behalf of Spanish-friendly sources to make the natives seem more ignorant and stupid than they truly were. Agüeybana the elder did receive Ponce de León warmly, but his intentions were clearly political. There was a negotiation process where the Spaniards were given some land (presumably in order to avoid a mess like the one at Hispaniola, of which the local caciques were aware of) but they were not treated like gods, not even as royalty. Ponce de León was forced to jump trough several hoops before meeting Agüeybana himself and even when they completed the guaytiao as a peace agreement, the Taínos still stiffed a Spanish noble (Cristóbal de Sotomayor) by giving him infertile and harsh terrain to create a settlement in the outskirts of the High Chief's domain... You do not mess with a god like that. Clearly, the Taínos were competent politicians... And the Spanish respected them to some degree as well, addressing the caciques with the honorific of "Don", which is not something that you would give to somebody that is absolutely submissive to you.

• 2- There was no "drowning" of Salcedo or anyone else for that matter. The incident that started the war is well documented in Spanish sources and the man executed was Sotomayor, who was fleeing his settlement because the Taíno had declared war and Agüeybana himself was tasked with executing him. You do not place a hit on someone that you may consider, at least probably, immortal.

• 3- This group claims that the death of Agüeybana II took place in an anticlimactic shootout in a battle between the Spanish and the Taíno "ending the war", when Ponce de León and his successors (including a viceroy of Hispaniola) keep complaining about the insurrection in letters to the Crown for two more years.

• 4- The claim that Cofresí was a privateer for Bolívar when Colombia served as a volunteer during the final incursion against him. This is thoroughly detailed in the log book of captain Sloat and found in official documents of the Navy.

• 5- The claim that the Grampus captured Cofresí when it was already in the Virgin Islands. See above.

As you see, all of these misconceptions could have been easily dispelled by simply searching the relevant archives. Yet, this only represents the "lack of research" aspect, Badillo brings forth a more troubling issue that we should take under consideration: politics. Several of these authors published under a political gag that crippled the sources that they could research. And, worse yet is that all of them also imprinted their own views on race and politics in their work. Yes, they were most independentistas and hence you would expect them to be anti-government, but they were also distinctly pro-European in their narratives of the Taínos, either by indoctrination or by personal choice. Badillo reproduces a speech where Brau dismissed the Taínos as "not worthy of historical immortality" and describes Agüeybana as an incidental leader and the other natives as cowards... All of this without bothering (or perhaps being incapable of) browsing the royal documentation that a) establishes that he was at the forefront of the conflict for years and b) clearly shows that the Taíno were both persistent and responsible for their share of death and material loss. He argues that this narrative of the submissive, meek, native was intentional and pushed by the government itself for the same reason that royal archives were kept private after they arrived to the Catholic University, to prevent an uprising while the Spanish-American war was brewing and Spain was reeling from all its loses in the American continent. Another, equally problematic issue, is that virtually all of the early to mid 20th century historians relied on the work of people like Brau and Coll y Toste, even some as notable as Ricardo Alegria and the Instituto del Cultura Puertorriqueña, perpetuating the fictional narratives in all sort of books (including school text books) articles and articles, which also means that Juan del Pueblo has memorized it by heart.

I know that this seems like an enormous hassle, but we must see it as an opportunity to make our articles more reliable that the public curriculum, to reflect the historically accurate accounts that are inexistent in the web and in the process, perhaps, to help place our ancestors in the place that they should be instead of the one that their enemies assigned for them. Now, I am not suggesting that we remove anything sourced to all of these authors, but we should place a note of sorts like "According to the work of [author] written [x amount of years] after the event..." in order to let the reader know (in a subtle way) that there is apocryphal and in some cases, downright fictional, content in their "historical" works. Besides that, I also think that we should move Salcedo's page to "Legend of Diego Salcedo" and make it clear that he never existed, and remove any mention of the name "Guanina" or any content that implies that this was really the name of Agüeybana's sister or that the actions described are real. Another myth that we need to dispel is that the Caribs were cannibals, there is no historic documentation supporting this and it is likely yet another apocryphal representation made by the conquistadores to vilify the Caribbean natives as ignorant and savage. I am also concerned about some of the articles dealing with Taíno language and religion, but we should focus on fixing our own narrative before entering into the scope of the Caribbean project. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I consider what you have written here a great observation on your behalf and fully back you up on what should be considered as a reality in regard to our Taínos. I also agree that a notation such as "According to the work of [author] written [x amount of years] after the event" should be included in our articles. A good example of the following quote

  History is written by the victors...

  — Walter Benjamin

is Dr. Paul Gerard Miller, who was appointed, after the United States invaded Puerto Rico, Commissioner of Education. Miller had the school history books written by Salvador Brau replaced with the ones which he wrote and approved by the POV's of the U.S.. We must all realize that historians have a tendency to rewrite history in accordance to what is accepted by the governing power and this applies to the Spanish colonial government. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed Tony, and I'm glad that you mention Miller, because that is another author that made questionable use of the historical documentation in topics that are unrelated to the ones previously mentioned. I think that we need to adopt a wary approach to anything written before the life time of an author and develop a general writing style that does not completely disregard them, but places their work in proper perspective. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony in certain points. I think that the best way to approach this is by attributing who expressed such and such statement ("according to AuthorX"). Your exposition seems to delve into a grey area of opinion and original research. But if you can provide actual references that backup your claims there shouldn't be a problem in including them. I would be cautious by making sure that whatever it is that you put into the article is actually backed up by a reliable source. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no original research in any of the assertions numbered 1-5 (at least not coming from me) those conclusions are argued by Badillo in his book, and the historicity of Salcedo has been in question for a while, so even if the professor is delving into those "grey areas" himself, beginning our pages with that narrative is probably bad practice. When I post the draft for the Taíno rebellion in question, you will notice that every claim has a corresponding reference just as was the case with Cofresí, and the book is also relatively new and copies can be bought easily for verification. Ironically, I did not mention (in my opening statement) the possibility of a civil war being active between the Agüeybana loyalists and the independent caciques of the north when the Spaniards arrive because, IMO, it seems a bit like speculation.

Badillo, just like Cardona Bonet and Ursula Acosta, all had the consideration to republish the original documents without modification in their books and they have something in common, access to the documents that were unavailable to the others (some are now accessible in the public domain, Sloat's logbook and his correspondence with the Navy secretary, for example). This is not a new narrative either, the head of the Centro de Investigaciones Historicas (UPR) first noticed the contradictions between the "official" narrative and what the documents that were arriving there said.... All the way back in 1989. And he went as far as publishing a paper discussing them that -apparently- failed to gather the proper attention.

So, at least within academia, these observations precede both Badillo and me by almost 30 years. It's up to us to decide if we should continue asserting that the Taíno, who had an intricate military and economic hierarchy, "lived a peaceful life" (only being bothered in their happy-go-lucky lives by "sporadic" attacks by the Caribs) and that they believed that the Spanish were gods or if we go by the contemporary narrative of the academia. Both have enough sources that would be considered "reliable" by WP standards. Folklore or documentation, that is our debate here, I don't delve into anything that is not stated by a contemporary historian. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(←) BTW, I noticed that what appears to be a neo-Taíno movement (the Jatibonicu) linked to their webpage at Flags of Puerto Rico and are quoted as a reference at Culture of Puerto Rico. I would probably support a page about neo-Taínismo in modern Puerto Rico, but we should be careful that they don't use the historical Taíno pages to promote their organization. They are not a recognized tribal nation AFAIK, so their claims are probably not a reliable source yet. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Continuing with the content and arguments of Badillo's book... The author uses the term "war" throughout the book, so another concern is with the article's title... "Rebellion" is, "by definition, "... an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed", but neither the Taíno nor the Spanish held full control of San Juan/Borikén...

In fact, besides the settlements that were created by the Spanish (including those where the Spaniards were "allowed" to build them by the local caciques) Taínos retained control over most of the main island (the entire central region + most of the east, west and south coasts) and Vieques and had not submitted to the Crown.

There is no "rebellion" or "revolution" without an undisputed government, and by all means Spaniards/Taíno were living in a collaborative association. Agüeybana entered the association by completing the guaytiao with Ponce de León (giving him a lot of political power), *but* he never renounced his own authority. The Spaniards still had to make formal requests of land and *buy* their resources from the Taíno (for example, Sotomayor, despite his high-rank in Ponce de León's government, had to buy a harvest of yuca from Agüeybana's conuco).

The power struggle is evident when both sides declare war, the Taínos in an areíto before killing Sotomayor and the Crown in the correspondence between the royal secretary and Ponce de León (after the conquistador's reports arrive to Spain) and his successors, Díaz and Cerón. In these letters, the Crown even delineates a strategy to "calm" the rest of the Taínos by extraditing the rebel caciques and replacing them with anyone loyal, so that they will "submit" like the Taíno at Hispaniola.

So... Even in Spanish documentation the fact that the archipelago's control is disputed gets noted, thus there was no "established government" and the word "rebellion" is being misused. By definition, this was a civil war ("A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or country..."), but "San Juan-Borikén Civil War" is not exactly a catchy title, and "Puerto Rican Civil War" would be anachronic since the Spanish still referred to the main island as "San Juan" in 1511. I'm inclined to believe that "Spanish-Taíno civil war of 1511" has the best ring, but prefer to wait on your feedback before proceeding with anything. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, if you use Merriam-Webster, that dictionary says that a rebellion is, "an open opposition toward a person or group in authority." [1] So, using the word rebellion is fine because the Spaniards were the authority in that area (you don't need to control the whole territory). But I think a better word would be revolt, which is what is used by reliable sources. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure... Even that interpretation of revolt mentions "to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government)", it implies that one side has control over the other. In this case, both sides claimed (and quite objectively) had a decent amount of authority, they simply withdrew their recognition of the authority of the other side. That is, pretty much, the definition of a civil war ("a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country"). "Revolt" is something that I have used more when it come to independence war, which this wasn't. As far as the book goes, it parts from the idea that the Taíno believed that the Spaniards were gods until they drowned Salcedo (see page 67: In the "Agüeybana" search) and thus were subjected from the beginning, which would explain why the author uses a term employed for rising from subjection. I also have no idea where they got the part about a dog killing Agüeybana's son, but no such child is mentioned by any of the authors that I have, not even by Oviedo (who got his narrative from Ponce de León himself), so it is likely a variant of the Salcedo legend. I have been using "conflict" in my writing, but wonder if the vagueness could be an issue as a title. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think revolt is fine because Webster defines it as, "to act in a way that shows that you do not accept the control or influence of someone or something." The word has different meanings but in this case it refers to that one since the Taíno, "acted in a way that showed they did not accept the control of the Spaniards over Spanish settlements."

Regarding the use of civil war I must disgress. I don't think the Spaniards can be considered to be citizens of the same country as the Taíno. For all purposes, the Spaniards were citizens of Spain settled in Puerto Rico. They were not citizens of the same society as the Taíno. The belligerents were from two different societies. Civil war is typically reserved for wars between members of the same society (the American Civil War, the Syrian War, the Korean War, etc).

But I think "conflict" is too soft as well.

When are you publishing your book?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The double meaning is still a problem IMO. And I get where you are coming from, but remember that the Taíno granted them political power trough the guaytiao, which at the least made them members of the same society from the perspective of the natives. The Taíno did not recognize any citizenship per se, they worked on economic/military/political ties. With that said, belligerence between members of two different groups has a definition: War. Which is a strong word for sure, but which I guess would place the article in line with American Indian Wars, Mexican Indian Wars and New Zealand Wars... Which are probably the closest counterparts to this conflict. I proposed "civil war" because it seems to fit the bill with softer wording.

I also think that you misunderstood the initial statement, I am not publishing a book... I am adapting the work of professor Jalil Sued Badillo, the director of the UPR-Río Piedras' Social Sciences Department (who has been publishing books on the topic since the 1970s) into a draft to publish here. These are mostly his arguments (as well as those of historians and genealogists Cardona Bonet and Ursula Acosta, who also questioned the accuracy of those authors), but I brought the matter here because posting a piece covering his work would stick out like a sore thumb in a project where we discuss the legend of Salcedo as fact. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention, that Haines' book refers to Spaniards as immortals, not gods. Big difference. Do you have a reliable source that debunks the Salcedo drowning myth? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is technically the same assertion in light that the local Taíno were already aware of the conflicts at Hispaniola (they continuously commerced with them, even during the 1511-13 conflict), where Spanish were killed. Anyways, I have the Spanish correspondence that Badillo reproduces, including a 1511 litigation that directly states that the conflict began due to the assassination of Sotomayor which lead to a Royal Decree authorized by the infamous Juana la Loca. I also have the original narratives of the Spanish historians from the 1500s-1700s. Salcedo and Guanina do not appear in any of the literature until the 19th century (and I have no idea when little Agüeybana Jr. first appeared, but assume that it was much later). Since his name is conspicuously absent from the historical record, it think that the burden of proof is on the side that proposes his existence. Oral tradition is capable of inflating a legend to widespread acceptance and in the case of Salcedo, Fernando Picó compares it to Washington's cherry tree myth (see p. 137). - Caribbean~H.Q.

---

(←) Ok, I am going with "Spanish–Taíno War of San Juan–Borikén", since we have a similar situation to the French and Indian War, where the combatants were mixed in similar factions in this case loyalist Taínos/Spaniards vs. belligerent Taínos/Caribs, in other words a fragmented local faction and two "foreign" factions. Its not the choice of words that I would have used, but it falls in line with similar articles. I need to continue working with the other books while I can, so this discussion will have to continue on the march. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI

A series of books has been uploaded online (they were given open access) by the Interamerican University. They should be of interest for those users that are into politics or economics. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)