Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/2021/January

Articles for deletion

I would like to notify the Puerto Rican community that the following articles about Puerto Rican military heroes have been nominated for deletion: Angel Mendez; Manuel Rivera Jr.; Jorge Otero Barreto; Ramón Núñez-Juárez ; Humberto Acosta-Rosario. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do these 3 Puerto Rican PNP governors belong in American politics WikiProjects

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Proj members:

To make their project memberships consistent with the other 10 PR governors, a couple of days ago I removed Wanda Vazquez, Ricardo Rosello and Pedro Pierluisi from the American Politics, US Governors, and US Latino and Hispanic American Governors wikiprojects. However, a day later, TJMSmith reverted my edits here, here and here, claiming "the Governor of Puerto Rico is very important in US politics" (Vazquez), "those projects are useful, and he is clearly within the scope of them" (Rosello), and "please don't remove projects when they are relevant" (Pierluisi). These are all, of course, POV arguments, without any WP validity.

These 3 governors (as well as the other 10 PR governors) are Puerto Rican, not American, governors, and they already have their memberships in the corresponding PR governor WikiProjects. Adding them to American politics and similar projects (see bullets below) is tantamount to a tacid agreement by the PR Wikiproject community that these 3 PR governors are American governorns as well as Puerto Rican governors which, according to their bios, they aren't. I am posting here on behalf of the editor with the burden to prove these governors belong in those projects, TJMSmith. While TJMSmith provides his arguments, I make the following observations:

Wanda Vazquez (US Politics / US Governors): She is not involved in American politics and she was not a US governor.
Pedro Rosello (US Governors / US Politics): He was not a US governor nor is he involved in American politics.
Pedro Pierluisi (US Hispanic and Latino Americans / US Politics): He is not/was not involved in American politics. He is not/was not a Hispanic nor Latino American, a designatioin reserved for people in the mainland US, not for those in its territories.

I have reverted TJMSmith's reverts once again, as the WP:BURDEN of proof is on him to provide cites these governors are Americans, or are/were governors of states of the US. Until PR is a state of the American Union, or until the above PR governors become governors of one of the 50 states of the Union, the attempt by the editor in question is an attempt to rewrite the current reality that PR is only an UNINCORPORATED territory of the US, not a US state. Mercy11 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy11, In my opinion, adding projects to talk pages is not any type of declaration nor is it controversial. It helps add the articles to lists so editors can more easily find articles to improve within their scope. The scope of WP:POLITICS/US is a task force of WP:POLITICS covering "all articles related to the Politics of the United States." It's not a stretch by any means to include the politics (and politicians) of U.S. territories in this task force. WP:USA includes a broad range of topics including everything related to the United States. After all, the U.S. Wikipedia article includes territories in the first lead sentence. I didn't say anything about them being American governors. They are governors of Puerto Rico which is why WP:Puerto Rico is perfect also. What is the downside or negative of including those Wikiprojects? In my view, if it happens to attract more editors to improve the articles, it can only be a positive. Also, Pedro Rosselló and Pedro Pierluisi both served in the U.S. Congress (see List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress). Wanda Vázquez Garced is a member of the Republican party and endorsed Trump's presidential campaign. It seems odd to say they are not involved in US/American politics. I would say they play an important and highly unique role. TJMSmith (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A related point, I also add similar talk pages to other articles, like the U.S. Virgin Island attorney generals Denise George and J'Ada Finch-Sheen and other Puerto Rican officials like Dennise Longo Quiñones, Carlos Contreras Aponte, Lorenzo González Feliciano and Concepción Quiñones de Longo. I'm trying to help improve/start articles where I can. TJMSmith (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing Pierluisi doesn't belong in WikiProject U.S. Congress; he was RC and is fine in that project. You seem to be confusing Proj membership with Categorization: WP's system so "editors can more easily find articles" is WP:CAT, not WP:PROJ membership; WP:PJ is editor-oriented, CAT is reader-oriented. There's enough confusion among editors regarding the US-PR relationship; we don't need to confuse them further with additions to the wrong projects. Please get your facts straight, Rosello isn't in the List as you state above, and there's a reason for that: he wasn't a member of Congress. "I didn't say anything about them being American governors", really? Then how about your edits here ("USGov=yes") and here ("American=yes")? We need to report clearly, not add confusion. The day PR becomes a state then you, I, and everyone else, will be editing to implement those changes; but that day isn't today. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy11, The scope of the WikiProjects and task forces in question are broad and encompass US territories. It's an assumption that adding these projects causes confusion. Is there proof of this? While it may confuse some editors, it actually helps me and may assist other editors. "USGov=yes" is just adding the article to the US government task force which is under the umbrella of the US project. It is not the same as saying the subject is American. Many articles there are not even bios, so it has nothing to do with citizenship status. To me, it is saying that editors interested in American politics may be interested in that article because it is a relevant topic. This isn't the same as me saying they are American. "WP:Politics/American=yes" was adding the article to the American politics task force. Politicians from Puerto Rico, especially high-level positions like the Cabinet and Resident Commissioner are relevant to American politics. They are often very influential both on the island and stateside. I already wrote above that U.S. Territories fall under the purview of US politics. While Puerto Rico clearly has a separate and independent identity it also overlaps with the broad/inclusive scope of other wikiprojects. Note- I do apologize for my mistake above about the list of congress people, he was a shadow member and I was confused. Cheers! TJMSmith (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with adding USGov=yes to Puerto Rico's politician talk pages. I noticed the many categories on the Wikipedia:WikiProject United States correctly don't include Puerto Rico in many of their 'state' categories. TJMSmith, the struggle is real - it is ongoing with editors and readers thinking that PR is in the US. There is a very long history of confusion on this topic. Please don't add USGov=yes to the articles because that would be incorrect. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, TJMSmith, you also Categorized Puerto Ricans as Americans here and more still as shown here. If consensus agrees that Puerto Ricans should be categorized as Americans then those new classification edits can be added/stay but there is, and there has not been in the past, consensus for the practice of classifying Puerto Ricans as Americans. We need to be consistent in the way we present Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans in the encyclopedia to minimize confusion regarding the relationship between PR and the US. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question: If Puerto Ricans are in fact native born Americans (and they are) and Puerto Rico is in fact part of the United States (and it is) how can one - reasonably – argue against their inclusion in categories labeled “American”? Hammersbach (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN. Mercy11 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN? Hmmm... that’s a rather pithy, and yet odd, reply from the previous editor, as I would have thought that this policy would apply to those desiring to prevent the inclusion of the “American” category, not those wishing to add it. To wit: the burden is to prove that the three aforementioned governors are just Puerto Rican citizens, and not also American citizens. (They are born US citizens. Period.) The burden is to prove that Puerto Rico is a separate and distinct sovereign entity, outside of the US, and not an American territory. (It’s an American territory, as admitted above. Period) The burden is to prove that the Governors of Puerto Rico are the actual Heads of State, and not the Presidents of the United States of America. (They are not, the Presidents are. Period.) The burden is to prove that the laws passed by the government of Puerto Rico supersede those passed of the Congress of the United States of America. (They don’t. Period.) The burden is to prove that the rulings of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico cannot be overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. (SCOTUS rules. Period.) The burden is to prove that… (etc., etc. Etc, Period.) This is the “current reality” of the politics of Puerto Rico and as such these political realities, like it or not, by definition, fall under the umbrella of American politics. When the realities are no longer applicable then, and only then, can a valid argument be made for “USGov=yes” to be “incorrect”.

So I ask the question again, how can one - reasonably – argue against their inclusion in categories labeled “American”? Hammersbach (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersbach: You state and hold dear that "...and Puerto Rico is in fact part of the United States..." , however, this is not correct according to definitions put forth by several sources of what constitutes the U.S. See WP:PRUS. PR "belongs to" but "is not part of the U.S." --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry The Eloquent Peasant, but that's irrelevant here. What's relevant here is that this editor wants to restore that material and the relevant policy section from WP:PG states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution," and this, he failed to do. Mercy11 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the above editor feels I have failed? Interesting. But where exactly have I failed? All five points that I have espoused are well established on other Wiki pages, pages that the above editor has contributed to and that address; 1) Citizenship, 2) Territoriality, 3) Executive, 4) Legislative, and 5) Judicial concerns. The above editor should state exactly what their objections are and specifically address the points that I have made, and they should do it without just making some flippant reference to some Wiki policy. Hammersbach (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I'm new 'round here. Honestly, just posting to get my feet wet. Apologies if I get talk page syntax wrong. To be brief, this seems like a non-issue being taken too seriously. I sympathize with Mercy11's concerns, but I do not consider them valid. A proper, simple heuristic for settling this matter ought to be whether or not the categorization helps contextualize the information properly. Given that a) Puerto Rico belongs to the United States, b) these politicians were heavily involved in US politics, and c) Puerto Rico is unique for being so heavily involved in both Latin American and US American culture and politics, I'd argue that both the 3 aforementioned governors and the previous ten ought to be included in the aforementioned wikiprojects. @Mercy11: , with all due respect, seems a bit too hung up on the semantics/geopolitics of the word "American" rather than the pragmatics of the categorization. This is a matter of both/and, not either/or. We can argue all day about whether or not Puerto Ricans are Americans-- that is irrelevant to whether or not Puerto Rican history and current events are comingled with American history and current events. The categorization is accurate-- regardless of how one feels about the identity politics of the word. Compostcompost (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits to PR article regarding health and federal ACA program

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I removed this information because it is sourced to a news report unclear, ambiguos, and , ultimately, in error. The ediotr has unwillingly fed on this error to add the information to the WP article. The editor re-entered it, but adding quotes from the article which, again, is an error in reading as the article is wrong. The truth is not as the article and the editor say. The editor re-entered the information, almost verbatim, here. My reason to open this discussion to give WTmitchell, the editor adding the information, an opportunity to explain it, as the burden of proof is on him and, gain consensus. I suggest to the editor that if he wants to add the information he is atemmpting to add, that he can find other sources that also repeat what he is claiming, rather than depend on one single source, even if it is theg NYT.

The relevant paragrapgh in teh NYT source states:

"Puerto Rico cannot use the federal health insurance exchange under the Affordable Care Act, and it chose not to create its own exchange because its citizens do not pay federal income taxes and thus are not eligible for the subsidies that make exchange plans more affordable."

(Cite: ^[1])

The editor paraphrased this as : "Since most Puerto Rico residents pay no federal income tax, they are not eligible for health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act."

There is no relationship between payment of federal income taxes and lack of health coverage under ACA. The reason PR is not eligible is becasue PR is a colony, and Congress has decided ACA won't be extended to PR. This is no different that noncoverage for Medicaid. As evidence we can read THIS LETTER from Marilyn Tavenner, Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the US HHS to Govt of Puerto Rico. In it the explanation given, over and over, is that PR is not a "state". The word "taxes" is never mentioned, let alone the words "federal income taxes" which the editor wants to include from the erroneous NYT article.

I removed the information as misleading, in fact, imo, outright innaccurate. However, this is not a first for a publication, even for the NYT, which in 1937 erroneously claimed that during the Ponce massacre the nationalists had fired first when, in fact, it was later found by multiple media that the netaionalists were not and that it was a peaceful march, not an insurrection or revolt as the Times claimed. In 1948 the NYT also stated Dewwey defeated Trumman, which was not true either. While I have a lot of trust in the NYT, in this case, this is their error again. The WP:BURDEN lies with WTmitchell. Wtmitchell please provide your relibale sources. Mercy11 (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The reason PR is not eligible is becasuen (sic) PR is a colony, and Congress has decided ACA won't be extended to PR." Well, since the editor above is seriously whining about WP:RS, do they have one for this accusation that they are making? Hammersbach (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN. Mercy11 (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The above editor is the one making the accusation of causality of the alleged colonial status of PR being the reason Congress won't extend ACA to PR. Therefore the burden is on them to cite it and prove it. Hammersbach (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

^ Source Quote Verbatim.

[1] Source Quote Verbatim.

[1]