Talk:Puerto Rico/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Cleanup

This article has been listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup for the following reasons:

• article is a mess
• 99% population is in school???
• article needs to be trimmed / lenghty text
  • some sections are too long and need to be made concise
  • sections should only be written as a short summary, as prescribed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries
    • section details should be explained on other articles
      • e.g. politics section

-- Jiang, Maio (early 2004?)

This article is a mess

The sections should be short summaries, with the details being explained in the subarticles. The history and politics sections need to be trimmed, with content being moved to the appropriate articles, which are lacking. --Jiang 21:56, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I already moved part of it to Constitution of Puerto Rico. --Jiang

Working on it as I write this. God this is gonna take so much time. :'~( --Maio 04:12, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I finally added some things to the "culture" section! (jibaros, mix of races, influences, etc.) That section really WAS short. I hope it's a bit better now..although it still needs a lot of work to do!

Question regarding the Demographic section

The article mentiones that settlers in Puerto Rico include Dominicans, Panamanians, and Santomeños. This article (and other sources that copy directly from it) is the only place I have heard Santomeños referenced - could any light be shed on this group? --User:RB McLeroy 00:54, 3 Jul 2005

---

Santomeños (spanish word) refers to people from St Thomas and St Croix, two small west indies islands east of Puerto Rico that are part of the Virgin Islands. This mention has no relevance and should be eliminated since in numbers they are non existant or too insignificant, as well as the mention of people from Curazao (never heard of this) As frequent shopping /medical tourists/visitors is correct to mention them but as settlers is not correct. I agree with the mention of Dominicans, Cubans also must be included as inmigrants since both are the most relevant groups of inmigrants in the last 50 years. I would not add any other group to the list in order to minimize confusion and misleading info --User:vertical123 02:58, 27 Nov 2005

Well, have to say that people from Curazao might be people from Curaçao (Dutch Caribbean island) the Netherlands Antilles, and since in numbers they are also non existant or too insignificant.

---

Shouldn't the Chinese be included also?

Puerto Rican cities

There are some links to Puerto Rican cities in Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Puerto_Rico which must be moved here or in one of the pages linked to from here or removed. Is it enough to have only a list of municipalities and no list of cities? -- Paddu 20:11 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There are no "cities" in Puerto Rico per se at the administrative level, all of them are considered municipalities (78 in total). There is no real consensus on which municipalities should be considered "cities", although San Juan, Caguas, and Ponce are always mentioned among them. For example, from the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Puerto_Rico I can tell you that neither Culebra, nor Cayey, nor Lares, nor Salinas, nor Vieques are considered cities. Some history books mention 9 cities, while others mention 11, 7, etc. About a decade ago municipalities became autonomous, and some of the municipalities self-proclaimed to be cities. For example, the official name used in the Mayor's Office of Guaynabo is "Guaynabo City" (in English, not Spanish). --Maio 21:15, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Removed the list from Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Puerto_Rico. -- Paddu 05:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Largest City

When the term "largest city" is used, I believe there should be an explanation that it's meant to mean largest by population and not largest by area. It used to be there but someone deleted it. Is it common knowledge that largest city means largest in population?

Cjrs 79 16:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. You never hear of Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia referred to as the largest city in the world, do you? Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 23:34, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Merger needed

Jose de Diego and José de Diego need to be merged. I tried to do this but unfortunately the facts are contradictory so I had to give up hopefully someone here will know actually when he died etc.

Jose de Diego died in 1918. -RickRodz

Incorporated vs unincorporated

The article states that Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory of the US. In the article Incorporated territory Puerto is listed as unincorporated organized territories. I am confused. 143.50.221.28 11:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that article lists PR as "unincorporated" and explains how it has that status. I'll be bold and make the change and link to that article.

Jonathunder 02:35, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

How can Puerto Rico be an organized territory if it has a constitution? according to organized territory it's defined as not having a constitution but an organic law.

Cjrs 79 04:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

The article on organized territory is a little misleading--the statement there: An organized territory differed from a state in that although the organic act allowed for limited self government, a territory had no constitution and ultimate authority over the territory was held not by the territorial government but by the United States Congress. is more of a historical description applicable to those territories that became states. That article needs to be updated to clarify that these historical distinctions are not entirely applicable to contemporary territories. As currently applicable, "organized" simply means that the U.S. Congress has passed an Organic Act that establishes sefl-government. In some cases, as with the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, it is the Organic Act itself that is considered to be the territorial constitution. American Samoa is somewhat anomalous in that it has a constitution, but no Organic Act, and as such is technically "unorganized". Hope this helps. I'll take a shot at updating the organized territory article. older≠wiser 14:04, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Mona

Actually the island of Mona is not inhabitated year long except for employees of the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources. People can visit the island for hiking, camping, etc, by getting the required permits. But you can not, in any circumstance live in the island, no matter what your economical satus is. Also, at any given time there can't be more than a 100 people in the island, if i remember correctly. So, if anyone has anything else about this subject please let's discuss it so the neccesary changes can be made to the article. Cjrs 79 20:51, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Talk Page

Comments like the following are better suited for the talk page and not for the main article. "(The information does not say avg. it say pop. Percent. stop trolling)" Cjrs 79 15:50, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Was the dna Averaged or not? the article does not say it is. -from a contributor "

---

Don't know what you mean by "averaged"? The researchers took a 'representative sample' from the islands population...I guess you might have to speak to someone in the field to get a more detailed explanation. F.P.S.

Controversial

This article is not controversial anymore, can we delete the controversial issues tag in the top of this page?? Cjrs 79 01:22, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Anibal Salvador Acevedo Vila

Can someone direct me to a webpage where his middle name appears? I have never heard that he was salvador.Cjrs 79 19:59, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

It is, indeed... but I can't quote an article stating it... :-( 136.145.192.75 15:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV or Censorship?

Neutral point of view should not promote ambiguity, ruling class policy or political capitulation. This is not about politics, but about facts as they should be stated, not as “officials” and travel catalogues promote them. This is part of the reason why a project like the Wikipedia exists, to help us, the people, define the world as it is, and as we see it and live it -- without government, political and corporate oversight.

The comment about the use of the word “territory” as being “very non-NPOV" was very inaccurate. The U.S. State Department freely uses the terms commonwealth, freely associated state, possession, territory, dependencies, protectorates or dependent area as any insular, unincorporated area, including Puerto Rico. One should not be confused by the use of “commonwealth” as part of it’s “official” name to think that it is also a defacto and exclusive category to define Puerto Rico's political status. This is very wrong and misleading. It is, however, a political maneuver that many unread people gleefully accept.

I’ve seen too many references given to the CIA World Fact Book as if it were truly just that – a “fact book.” This is dangerous in the Wikipedia context. The CIA is a foreign intelligence agency under the employment of the United States Government. Yet, you’re telling me about “neutral points of view?”

“The initiatives taken by Puerto Rico and the United States had so far failed to set in motion Puerto Rico’s decolonization process.” This is from an official statement of the Special Committee on Decolonization of the United Nations, June 13, 2005. “Decolonization” means transference of a territory out of colonial political state.

Now you tell me who’s more neutral, the CIA or the United Nations?

Also, considering the immense history of this little island, the intro is as brief as it should be.

"who’s more neutral, the CIA or the United Nations?" Notwithstanding the long history of accusations, one of the CIA's primary missions is to gather and present factual information. The UN does not have that as one of its missions, in fact it's a political organization, and most of its pronouncements are crafted through negotiation and for political purposes. So while the fact book shouldn't be our sole source, in the absence of very solid evidence to the contrary, it is likely to be more authoritative on points of fact than a UN political statement. Stan 15:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really? On WMDs the UN was right and the CIA was wrong. After the Iraq debacle, I don't think the CIA stands as a very credibe source. Guettarda 16:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Mona is uninhabitated through large parts of the year except for employees of the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources. People can visit the island for hiking and camping by getting the required permits."

With all the vital and important information that should be placed in the "brief intro," what the heck is this doing there??? This is pure fluff and has no business being there. Is there a mention of surfing in California beaches in the intro to the United States? Not even in the intro of California is there such fluff! I don't understand the reason/agenda in watering down the entry to Puerto Rico. If you're going to be the custodian to this entry, please catch up on some real history books about the island -- written by Puerto Ricans, not the CIA!

And regarding the comment above, CIA vs. United Nations, that is a monumentally naive statement. Please, pick up a book or two and read about what the CIA has done -- and openly admitted to -- with their "factual information." "Conduct covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve United States policy objectives." That is part of their mission statement. Even if the United Nations does not have an "information gathering" mission, I think I'll side with them on the issue of "unbiased observation."

I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, but please keep in mind that this should not be about pushing an agenda, but informing. The perspectives should not be watered-down because they may cause "controversy." This is really lame. The whole world is controversial, it is what it is. The purpose of this project (Wikipedia) is not to make everyone feel warm, happy and fuzzy inside -- it is to serve as an open source of information where as many perspectives and sides can contribute to any given subject, given a reasonable degree of fact mixed with general opinion. This is what produces a people's encyclopedia.

And regarding the whole issue of "colony" and "territory" vs. the "official" semantics: I will gleefully bow before the powers that be -- that's not my issue. But once again, in the context of open source of information like this, the custodian of this entry should demonstrate a little more responsibility in his administration. To this end, he should include that the 'United States controls interstate trade, foreign relations and commerce, customs administration, control of air, land and sea, immigration and emigration, nationality and citizenship, currency, maritime laws, military service, military bases, army, navy and air force, declaration of war, constitutionality of laws, jurisdictions and legal procedures, treaties, radio and television--communications, agriculture, mining and minerals, highways, postal system; social security, and other areas generally controlled by the federal government in the United States,' somewhere before or after "People can visit the island for hiking and camping by getting the required permits." And these are facts that the CIA can confirm for you, should you have any doubts!

You're right, the idea that Puerto Rico is a colony is not a neutral point of view -- it's a joke. It's really sad to see this wonderful project censored by a small few who obstinately yield to the policy objectives of a government -- this should not be the place for that, and I submit that you are corroding this project by doing so.

Thank you, for inviting me into this debate. My name is Michael Guzman. I have residency in both New York and Puerto Rico (born and raised in PR). Sorry I haven't had time to registering, but I will if it will make the "community" happy. This project, as a whole, is truly evolutionary.

Puerto Rico's executive branch

Since I don't want to start an edit war I will like to debate here the argument of whether or not the chief of state of Puerto Rico is the president of the United States.

• The United States of America does have ultimate power in any issues regarding Puerto Rico. But it is Congress not the president who has ultimate power over Puerto Rico.
• As far as I am concerned all executive decisions are carried out by the Governor of Puerto Rico.
• The Constitution of Puerto Rico grants all executive power to the elected governor, and only the governor, of Puerto Rico.
• Puerto Ricans do not vote to elect the President of the United States. Can a chief of state, in a democracy, be someone for whom the inhabitants cannot vote for (or against)?

Because of the arguments above I believe that the President of The United States is not the chief of state of Puerto Rico. --Joelito 7 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)----

All of the above assertions are correct. The President of the United States has the same relationship with Puerto Rico as it does with any other state of the union. The President has no special powers over the island. Congress does have powers over the island, but i believe that they do not extend to more than it does in any other state. I think this last assertion is debatable and I think some people may reach a different conclusion. i am going to delete themention of the President as chief of state. Cjrs 79 July 8, 2005 16:14 (UTC)

He may not have any power, but he is the official head of state. The CIA says he is. Matjlav 16:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me try to explain it. The President of the US is as much Head of State of Puerto Rico as he is of any other US state, so if we include that in the Puerto Rico article, you would have to include it in the articles for each of the states. The CIA includes it because they have to. If they were not to include that in the article then people would think PR is independent. I see how this might be difficult to understand for someone not fmailiar with the status of Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands and American Samoa, but it is what it is. Presindet of the United States, is the head of state and goverment of the United States, Governor of Puerto Rico is the head of the executive and goverment in the Island, as any other governor is in their state. Federal and state (also territorial goverments) are different levels of administration. I hope this makes it more clear. This is a very nice discussion by the way. Cjrs 79 01:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Let me add this. I read in your profile, Matjlav, that you are interested in Monarchies, well I understand your comment then. The Queen is head of state of different nations that have their own governors, well here is absolutely not the same. The President has no representative in the states that perform his reserved powers, moreover the President of the US has almos no power over states, except with the National Guards and thru the Department of Justice. If the President doesn't like a law in a state he can't veto it, or call the governor and tell him what to do, which a Chief of State could do, but he can't. I hope this makes my comment even more clear. Cjrs 79 01:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

So, who has said that: "Puerto Rico has sometimes been said to have a "White" majority, an extinct Amerindian population, persons of mixed ancestry, Africans and a small Asian minority"

I remember in school always talking about us puerto ricans been all of mixed ancestry, spanish, african and taino. Any comments? It is true that many puerto ricans see themselves as whites, but if you ask them they will also accept their mixed ancestry, and when the say white they just mean the color of their skin.

Cjrs 79 03:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that most Puerto Ricans consider themselves of mixed ancestry and studies have supported this belief [1]. The reason Puerto Ricans are said to have a white majority is because the answers for question #6 of the 2000 Census [2] ("What is this person's race"?) did not include Puerto Rican or even Latin. Since the right answer for the question was not found Puerto Ricans answered they were white beacuse the other options where really far from the truth. --Joelito 13:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Most Puerto Ricans are white, due to the constant spanish immgration long after the colony was turned over the the US , people who live on the Island will say the same also. the whole mixture thing is debated but many have said that Puerto Rican people living on the island still are of white or mostly white decent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XXGustaXX (talk • contribs) 20 Sep 2005

white (mostly Spanish origin) 80.5%, black 8%, Amerindian 0.4%, Asian 0.2%, mixed and other 10.9% https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html#People changed the article because it is inaccurate to what the CIA really says they DO put mixed as a race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.161.63 (talk • contribs) 20 Sep 2005

I agree with the comments by XXGustaXX. The populations of Puerto Rico and Cuba were filled by numbers of Canary Islanders, Catalans, and other Spanish ethnic groups fleeing Spain before the Spanish-American War and the declaration of the First Republic. Due to mainly econoomic reasons, the lower economic classes on the island emigrated to the USA while the whte rulling classes remained due to attainment of wealth and property. Why would one leave the island to go to live in a mainland housing project as many new immigrants did so. That is why "nuyoricans" tend to be more mixed whereas Puerto Ricans on the island are more European. When Alba Reyes became the first Mr. Puerto Rican Universe of color to represent the island internationally, this made news. All her predecessors were fair skill, with clear European features. Cuba's population once had a huge abundance of Europeans, but due to the Cuban Revolution of 1959 the elites fled to the USA leaving the lower classes to hang and spend time with Fidel. Furthermore with Cuba's presence in Namibia, Angola, and Ethiopia, Fidel transported thousands of Africans orphans to Cuba, mainly to the Isle of Youth. Many mainland Cubans have viewed this as the "Africanization" of Cuba.

Also, please aware that Puerto Rico did not have the ecological resources to support a sugar plantation economy like Jamaica, Hispaniola, and Cuba. Water and rivers are needed for the irrigration of sugar. There are really no navegable rivers on the island as most rivers tend to be streams. --XLR8TION 20:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

I was recently looking at the list of external links on the Puerto Rico article and comparing it with the external links from other countries' articles and Puerto Rico's is way too long. Where do we draw the line on which are worthy of keeping and which are just propaganda or advertising?. I believe advertising links are unworthy of being in an encyclopedia.

I propose that only official sites be kept in the external links section. If no objections are drawn I will proceed the deletion/cleanup process.--Joelito 17:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Cjrs 79 21:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Religion

Since there is apparently differnet views over Puerto Rican religion I have decided to start this talk.

My opinion on the matter is that Puerto Rico is in its majority Roman Catholic. I believe that many people are trying to promote their own beliefs by creating paragraphs on religions in the main article. Some are even bold enough to state that their religion and not the Roman Catholic is a majority.

Also is there a need to have paragraphs for small religions in the main Puerto Rico article? Shouldn't this be mentioned in a sub-article titled Religion in Puerto Rico? From what I see the majority of the religion portion of the article is dedicated to minor religions while the major religion is mentioned almost as a side note.

Finally, I urge everyone to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and as such only facts should be written. If no proof or reference can be found to back up a claim it should not be posted in ANY article. Joelito 18:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Second. Couldn't have said it better myself.Gator1 19:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Just see the facts on religious change in Latin America, and do provide an independent scientific poll to prove Catholics are still in the majority! The only poll I know of, by Pablo Ramos, got 38% Catholic, over 50% Evangelical (The San Juan Star, April 12, 1998). Are there independent ways to verify? For example, only 20% of first marriages are Catholic ceremonies, according to El Visitante, the Catholic paper. I did not think it fair to question my objectivity; in debates, ad hominem arguments are improper. AAG 21 oct 05.

• I will still question your objectivity because you still haven't posted a source we can verify. Particularly useful for this would be an internet source. Furthermore only one poll claims that protestants are a majority over catholics (while the CIA Factbook and all other resources state the contrary) and trends in Latin America usually don't correlate with trends in Puerto Rico . Finally, 20% of first marriages being Catholic says little about the number of Catholics in the island. Joelito 13:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholics remain as a wide majority in Puerto Rico. Protestant church is growing but is not the main church, also recent interest in Eastern religion has been noticeable with the first visit of the Dalai Lama (2004) to Puerto Ricovertical123 02:59, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

A non-sovereign Nation

Puerto Rico has all the atributes of a Nation: common language, common history and religion, a strong identity as puertoricans, a rich literature with poets and writers that wrote about 'being puertorican' in their stories and poems. Puerto Rico had all of this 200 years before the US invasion in 1898. When the US took power of Puerto Rico and Cuba, who were the last colonies of Spain, both were young nations already. One got it's indpendence and the other remained a colony until 1952. With the constitution of Estado Libre Asociado in 1952, Puerto Rico gained self government and entered voluntarily ,thru a plebiscite, in a political association with US that it is still debated today. vertical123 01:09, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

For quick reference: International Olympic Committee, National Olympic teams of the Americas, National Olympic team of Puerto Rico : http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/noc/index_uk.asp?id_assoc=9 --vertical123 02:09, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Yes Puerto Rico is a non sovereign nation with a very unique culture (that is influenced by both U.S and Latin American influence) but having an Olympic team doesn't stop you from being a colony, and it should not be used as tool to inspire chauvinistic patriotism and fear of status change, or to hide the fact that it still is a territory under the plenary powers of congress, which happens quite a bit during election time.

Chief of State

I am very sorry to say this but, the chief of state has, and MUST be listed in Puerto Rico under The President of the United States: George W. Bush, you cannot change that fact, as quoted from the CIA World Factbook:

"Executive branch: chief of state: President George W. BUSH of the US (since 20 January 2001) head of government: Governor Anibal ACEVEDO-VILA (since 2 January 2005)"

Link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html

I do understand that from the above discussion how Puerto Rican's, Guam and other US Territory residents feel about the way who controls the country, but you cannot change real facts by giving YOUR own personal touches and expressions. Sorry guys this is an online encyclopedia which does present facts and not made up by people who feel like it can't be true by posting their own views to make themselves feel better, if you want Puerto Rico to be without a Chief of State then please make your own website as you wish, but please do not mislead people into your own personal views.

Please do not remove it from the table, as this would cause a revert war, I am going to report this article as disputed if it does get reverted, Thanks! - K.

Here we go again. It is not about how we personally feel. We are a teritory of the US, and our relationship with the president of the US is the same as the relationship of the president with any state of the union. How many times do we have to explain this? How many times do we need to discuss it? Please sign your comments... Cjrs 79 22:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

States do not include the president as chief of state.. why should Puerto Rico include it? In no document, constitution or law does it name the president of the US as chief of state of any teritory.. nowhere... Cjrs 79 22:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two choices: use a COUNTRY infobox like those for independent nations (Jamaica, Cuba, etc.) or a STATE infobox for subdivisions of a country (like Hawaii, Florida, etc.) The COUNTRY infobox is now used on the page, and if it remains, then the President of the United States should be indicated - otherwise the page would be misleading the reader into thinking that Puerto Rico is an independent nation. If however, it would be inconsistent to indicate the President of the U.S. on the Puerto Rico page when the same is not done for the 50 states, then the COUNTRY infobox should be replaced with a STATE infobox, which only indicates a governor. Denvoran 22:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, well what do we have here? It seems that even the "CIA" World Facts makes mistakes. Anyway what can you expect from the CIA. They even sumed up the complete history of Puerto Rico in one paragraph. First of all, they forgot to mention that when Puerto Rico was invaded, it was already a "nation" with its own language, culture and traditions which Puerto Ricans til this day refuse to give up. Second, they state that American citizenship was "granted" to the Puerto Ricans. I believe that granted means that the Puerto Ricans asked for it, when the truth is that it was imposed upon them (Puerto Ricans had no say in the matter) by the Jones Act of 1917 with the intention of drafting the men to serve in WW1. Puerto Rico is a commonweatlh associated to the United States, therefore President Bush is not our president nor our chief of state. He is not our president because Puerto Ricans are not allowed to vote in the elections and he is the President of the "United States" nor is he our chief of state because Puerto Rico is not a "state". Nor is English our language, or the Star Spangled Banner our national anthem or the American flag our flag. I suggest that "K" study our constitution or history or at least check out other websites before relying on one website.

Another thing, what's the big deal about the infobox? Is there an infobox for a commonwealth? If so then that would be O.K. However, since there isn't and since Puerto Rico is a nation (according to the definition of nation and according to the United Nations) and since it isn't a "state" of the United States, and as I stated before President Bush is not the president of Puerto Rico, then let the infobox stay as country. Unlike Hawaii and Florida, Puerto Rico is a nation which may someday gain its independence. Thank you

(Oh don't forget continous posting of false or misinformed information is considered vandalizing) Tony the Marine 06:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Bitterness...

Anyway, in some ways Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are in the same boat. Using your argument, President Bush is not the President of Washingtonians because they do not vote for that office either. (Imagine that - the president of a country is not the president of the residents of its capital city.) Nonetheless, he is the President of the United States - a republic which includes 50 states, a federal district, and a handful of territories - Puerto Rico among them. A lot of peoples in history and, yes, in the present day are under the "rule" of leaders they did not elect. Is it fair? no. Is it right? no. But it was and is reality, and an encyclopedia should reflect reality as closely as possible, and not be slanted toward a certain point of view of "how things should be". Other realities that should be reflected in this article are that English is in use and is an official language in Puerto Rico and that the flag of the United States of America is flown all over the island, and not just over the isolated doors of an embassy or consulate, as is the case in places that are not part of the U.S.

As for the infobox, it can and should be amended to more appropriately reflect the status of Puerto Rico and not use the format that is used for independent countries.

Finally, there is a movement in Hawaii to restore its independence, and Florida was actually part of a nation - the Confederate States of America - that once fought for independence. So with that and my first point about D.C., it seems that Puerto Rico isn't so special after all... Denvoran 07:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't even dare to compare Puerto Rico with Washington D.C., unlike Washington D.C. we are a "nation" that was invaded. We have a governor not a president. Spanish is our official language not English. Not even the Federal Government of the U.S. has adopted English as the official language of the United States. The flag of the U.S. is flown on federal buildings, but the Puerto Rican flag is the offical flag of our people. That's why my people always carry their flag in thier cars and everywhere. Denvoron, do your homework and some people may get offended when the delicate subject of Puerto Rican politics is discussed. Another thing don't insinuate that I'm bitter, that's rude on your behave, I'm proud to be a Puerto Rican. Tony the Marine 08:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that anything I write will elicit an angry response, but here I go anyway...

Please note, "Tony the Marine" (a military officer of the United States of America?), I wrote in some ways Puerto Rico is like the District of Columbia - and I meant the situation that the respective residents do not vote for the U.S. President - and nothing else. Why do you use quotation marks around the word "nation"? Is it because Puerto Rico is not a nation in the sense that others are...? Yes, Puerto Rico has a governor, and it is part of the United States - which has a president. If you hate the English language so much, why are you using it? I have seen the flag of the United States flown all over the place in Puerto Rico, and not just on federal buildings. "Your people" can be proud of who they are, but it is their choice to be offended or not when a fact is stated - I have no control over how others decide to react to whatever I contribute to Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I incorrectly assumed that you are bitter, but isn't it rude on your behalf to tell me to "[not] even dare" , to "do [my] homework", to "[not] insinuate". I haven't told you to do anything! Denvoran 17:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. Whether Puerto Rico is autonomous, independent, or not autonomous is really irrelevant here. What is relevant is that there is not such thing as a President of Puerto Rico while there is a Governor of Puerto Rico. But in the interests of maintaining neutrality and accuracy, please note that you are confusing nationhood with statehood. While the Puerto Rican people may be classified as a nation, Puerto Rico is clearly not a sovereign state. The foreign and defense affairs of PR are clearly the responsibility of the United States. When a foreign head of state is to visit PR, there is no such thing as a state visit in San Juan. There are no embassies in PR, only consulates. The President of the United States is still "the President" in PR since PR is clearly US territory. An infobox on Washington DC would likewise carry the name of its mayor, not the POTUS. However, on the other hand, I don't think WikiProject U.S. states should apply here because there is real autonomy. A good way to see whether an entry should go by WikiProject Countries or a domestic-centered WikiProject is whether it has its own CIA factbook entry and internet TLD.--Jiang 08:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush is not listed here because he is President of the United States, not President of Puerto Rico. We only list local level officials in all entries, whether this be a head of state of a sovereign state, or a governor of a dependency. For example, Queen Elizabeth II is not listed in Bermuda because she is merely "Queen in Bermuda" as Bermuda is a crown dependency of the United Kingdom and she is sovereign in Bermuda because of her status of Queen of the UK, but she is listed in Canada because she is "Queen of Canada" as her realms are all considered seperate kingdoms on equal status with the UK. Likewise, President Bush is merely "the President" in PR, but not "the President" of PR. This is done for every other country that is not a sovereign state. --Jiang 06:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The exclusion of George W. Bush from the infobox is not meant to imply that PR is not part of the US, not any more than the listing of San Juan as the capital and the listing of the population as 3,916,632 instead of 297,700,000 is meant to imply that PR is not part of the US. This is an entry on Puerto Rico, not the United States. If the concern is over whether the US maintains sovereignty, then that should be addressed in the lead section, not by adding irrelevant entries in the infobox. This is simply following wikipedia convention. --Jiang 07:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• You know, I think that the best thing would be to create a new infobox for territories, commonwealths and such. I mean the whole discussion really has to do with the proper use of the infobox. Denvoron, I have nothing against you, you do make valid points, I guess it all depends on the perspective of the issue. No, I don't hate English, it is my first language, however it just isn't even an official language in the United States (by law) or some states, for ex. Arizona, that's all. Another thing Puerto Rico was a nation with it's own language, customs, traditions, political structure, currency and autonomy in 1898 when it was invaded even though it wasn't independent. Yes, once a Marine always a Marine. However, I realize that the real issue is about the infobox more then anything. Any thoughts?. Tony the Marine 18:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tony. Puerto Rico is not an independent country, nor is it a state of the USA. It has status similar to England Scotland and Wales in the United Kingdom and also similar to Native American Indian Tribes in Continental USA, which are also called "nations." Many nations in the British Commonwealth, such as Canada have relationships with Britain quite differnt from that of Puerto Rico to the USA, with respect to how much they are governed by the mother country, and how much independence they have. User:AlMac|^(talk) 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all we should be using a State infobox or like others said we should create a commonwealth/territory infobox, since Puerto Rico is part of the United States and not its own country (that is fact), I do suggest you guys to compare (the infobox) of the other US Territories like Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and others. Please look at their infoboxes why do they state that there is a "Chief of State", how come Puerto Rico doesn't have it?

Plus Tony the Marine please do not say ALL of the people of Puerto Rico or buildings do not fly the US flag, since that is a flat out lie, you cannot represent the majority of Puerto Rican's, it looks like you are the 10% left that belive that, sorry... game over. I live here and I see the US flag every day, and everwhere I look, go outside and take a look at all of the stores, buildings, universities, goverment buildings, even inside the governors office, peoples cars, they have the US flag and they are flown proudly around the island. So please do not say that you are proud to be Puerto Rican since you are showing the oposite of yourself. Thanks! -- Guest

• First of all K or Guest or whatever name you wish to use (since you use various names) don't get personal with me on this issue and call me a lair! I reafirm that not all Puerto Ricans display the American flag and I do not mean that out of disrespect. Let me tell you that I served and fought for the United States and for the flag. Did You? You're making this into a political issue and I'm stating the things the way they are. Another thing who do you think you are to imply that I am not proud to be a Puerto Rican? I have done more for the Puerto Ricans in Wiki then you will ever do. Don't insult me. I'm out of this dicussion, but let it be known that I'm not a vende patria, are you? Tony the Marine 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Chief of State" is not the name of an official title. It is a CIA World Factbook creation. If you look at every country article, you will see official titles being used. Ive removed the entries. Refer to Bermuda, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Gibraltar, Turks and Caicos Islands, Falkland Islands, Saint Helena, Pitcairn Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and British Antarctic Territory. Nowhere is Elizabeth II listed as "Chief of State". It's always the local head of government that is listed. The State infobox is inappropriate because certain entries (eg admission into the Union) do not apply, while others (eg TLDs) are no available.--Jiang 02:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, Puerto Rico is not "its own" country, it is a US Territory, how many times I have to repeat this again and again. Plus Tony the Marine, Puerto Rico's official languages are Spanish and English, and NOT Spanish as you stated and affirmed to other wikipedia users. -- Guest 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"a country is a geographical territory" (refer to the article definition). It is not a sovereign state. The two are not synonymous. PR can be considered a country, and the infobox should be applied following wikipedia convention to apply such boxes to fully autonomous entities and dependencies.--Jiang 02:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no way you can escape this issue without presenting facts with credible information. Why is nobody paying attention to the other articles that are US Territories too? Looks like only Puerto Rico is being eyeballed by you guys. Does the IMF, World Bank, UN, and other organizations classify us as a soverign state? No. Get your facts straight and show it to us... -- Guest 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have already removed the fake title "Chief of State" from the other article. We are apply wikipedia:WikiProject Countries here, not "WikiProject Sovereign states". Whether PR is a sovereign state is irrelevant.--Jiang 02:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you don't have credible information to show us, since you are saying that this issue is irrelevant because you participate in that project. So what? Do I care? NO... I suggest removing Puerto Rico from the WikiProject Contries, since we aren't sovereign country/territory or whatever you call it. I am not turning this into a political issue, but like many times I have mentioned show us REAL facts and not asusumptions made by you. -- Guest 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

you're still beating around a dead horse. Decisions in Wikipedia are made through community consensus. The consensus, as demonstrated through convention lasting since at least late 2002/early 2003, is to apply the template to all countries, regardless of whether they are sovereign states. Is French Polynesia a state? Is Hong Kong? If you believe that the template does not apply, then you have to explain why it does not apply and persuade all of us that it does not apply. The burden is not on me to prove that PR is a state (I never claimed it to be), but whether certain conventions need to be followed. Why does PR deserve a deviation from the established standards?--Jiang 02:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well since I am the person who first eliminated the President from the Infobox I guess I must at least have a say in this. Official Languages: Spanish and English. Infobox: Never says PR is a nation, clearly states PR is a territory. Yes, it is a country infobox. Big Deal. President? Irrelevant. Puerto Ricans do not vote for him. Puerto Ricans vote for a governor, ultimate power resides in the Congress of the USA. Only real power of the President lies in the armed forces. CIA Factbook objective? No. The CIA obviuosly has an agenda.

US Flags? Yes ? Proudly? Subjective. Everywhere? Exageration. In goverment buildings? Of course, PR is a territory after all. In universities? Only in administrative buildings of public universities. In cars? Yes. 40% or more favor statehood. In stores? Haven't seen one in Sears yet.

Has this been debated before? Yes. Next time please study the history of the problem so as the same errors are not commited again.

Finally for whom do you think wikipedia is written for? Peronally I write in wikipedia so that my kids(my students) and their kids can learn a little about every topic. I don't write so that people spend endless hours debating trivial matters. I write so that kids have an easy to access medium from which they can begin to learn. They will make up opinions on each subject in due time, as have many of us. Please stop the political, ideological, senseless debates and concentrate on writing/adding good educational articles. Why not write a Culture of Puerto Rico article or a paragraph on transportation in Puerto Rico instead of debating whether there is a chief of state or not. Or whether the infobox is appropiate for a territory. SO, LETS GET TO WRITING Joelito 05:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Guest is just a PNP supporter..what could be more point of view than that? His statement that American flags are everywhere is ridiculous. If it were like that, 60% of Puerto Ricans wouldn't be voting against statehood (including Democrats and I0ndependistis). If not, why would people be screaming Tito! Tito! and not Hopkins! Hopkins!!

We have no vote as far as the President of the United States. We do not have a President. Get over it, Guest.

Antonio Boricua =para Siempre Martin

Ummm I have to points to make. Firstly, the people in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Bermuda, Jamiaca etc. do not vote for the monarch, nor do Belgians, Swedes, Danes, the Dutch, Spaniards, Monegasques, Norweigens or the people of Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, yet they have all accepted their monarchs as the chief of state. And Denvoran, the District of Columbia does vote in presidential elections as of the 23rd ammendment to the constitution, DC gets exactly as many votes as if it were a state, and it has since 1961, get your facts straight. And there is no President of Puerto Rico, the Chief of State of Puerto Rico, is the president of the United States, whomever it is at the time. It is far different then Canada, where Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada, George Bush is not, the president of puerto Rico, simply their chief of state. Mac Domhnaill 20:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"chief of state of Puerto Rico" is not an official title or position, ex officio, de facto, or otherwise. puerto rico is not a state. it cannot have a "chief of state".--Jiang 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Head of Government in Puerto Rico is the Governor and it's official title is Governor, this is clearly established in the constitution (1952). The national flag is the Puerto Rico flag. The US flag represents a political association as much as the EU flag is represented in all countries of the European Union next to the national flag and regional or province flag. Puerto Rico is recognized as a country by the UN (see:http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cdbdemo/cdb_da_itypes_cr.asp?country_code=630) with 630 as the country code (Palestine < named as: Occupied Palestinian Territory> is another non sovereign state listed as a country by the UN as of 2005). --Vertical123 02:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is part of the United States, and the head of government of the United States is the President. This is fact, whether one agrees with it or not. The relationship between the countries of the European Union with each other and with Brussels is entirely different than the relationship between Puerto Rico and Washington. Each member of the European Union maintains its own sovereign government, is responsible for its own defense, maintains its own borders, issues its own passports, has its own postal service, etc. None of these are true of Puerto Rico. Just because the United Nations assigns a "code" to Puerto Rico does not make it an independent nation. And even so, no single country recognizes Puerto Rico as an independent nation, has set up diplomatic relations with it, or sends an ambassador to Puerto Rico, etc. In contrast, each member of the EU has full representation in Brussels, sends ambassadors to each of the other member countries, and recognizes the others as independent countries. As far as I understand, each EU member controls the extent to which it relegates powers to Brussels (e.g. they can decide whether or not to adopt the Euro currency) and each member could unilaterally withdraw from the Union. This is not so with Puerto Rico, as only Congress exercises control over the relationship between the federal government and Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rico could not unilaterally withdraw from the United States. Finally, Puerto Rico is not Palestine. Though some might argue otherwise, Puerto Rico is not "occupied". There is no controlled "border" between Puerto Rico and the mainland United States; indeed, travel between the two is unrestricted and, of course, requires no passport. About half of the population of Puerto Rico favors statehood, with only a small minority desiring independence - while Palestinians overwhelmingly demand independence from Israel.

Denvoran 19:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not part of the United States, the United States is the 50 states, 48 mainland and 2 outside mainland(alaska and hawaii) with the capital of the nation as a federated district. The federated states and their capital district cannot separate from the union and their self determination is not possible (they have no option for independence or commonwealth or association with another state),they are part of the US nation. Puerto Rico is not part of the US since it is recognized by the UN to have self government and to reach a compact of association with the US called Estado Libre Asociado in 1952 (this compact of association voluntarily concedes the US government sovergnty over some areas like inmigration and self defense among others). It is also recognized by International Law and the US government that Puerto Rico has the right to self determination since it has not adquired full sovereignty (only self government with a constitution). Palestine is also a non sovereign state which has observer status at the UN but it's self determination is also internationaly recognized.--Vertical123 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is an associate member of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) as a non sovereign state.--Vertical123 11:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that the States cannot separate from the Union is incorrect. The right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution. Tomer^talk 13:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the federated states of the US and it's capital have no right to self determination. Can you please name the article of the US constitution that, as you say, guarantees separatism? (Let's not forget there was a Civil War fought in that nation.) .--Vertical123 11:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I haven't really thought much about it since I was about 15 years old (which was longer ago than I care to think about)... found this while I was reading. It doesn't support my statement, but others might find it as interesting a read as I did... Tomer^talk 23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

International Community View

I have added a little more texture to this debate by editing the section that addressed Puerto Rico's status as a state in the international community by addressing UN discussions on point. I found that the description of the "jargon of international law" was a bit incomplete as written. The changes I have made might help to clarify why Puerto Rico's classification remains polemic. Similarly, I have discussed the referendums in more detail, since they are the staple of politics on the island, and help illustrate the barriers to reaching a consensus for deciding Puerto Rico's political status. HLS Group 3 04:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For quick reference:UN Special Committee on Decolonization 6th & 7th Meetings:Special committee calls on United States to expedite Puerto Rico self-determination process http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/gacol3121.doc.htm "Reiterating that the Puerto Rican people constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation that has its own unequivocal national identity, the Special Committee would call upon the United States Government to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people fully to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, in accordance with Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee".--Vertical123 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

For quick reference: CIA factbook, countries with a constitution list (Puerto Rico is listed between Portugal and Qatar): [3].--Vertical123 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph regarding resolution 753 I think is not true, after resolution 1514, Puerto Rico was put back on the lists of colonies.--24.152.251.248 07:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new opening

for discussion: The opening of this article ( ... Supporters of maintaining the status quo (i.e., Commonwealth status) insist that upon attaining this status, Puerto Rico entered into a voluntary association with the U.S. "in the nature of a compact", but opponents of Commonwealth disagree: according to them, Puerto Rico is no more than an unincorporated organized territory of the U.S., subject to the plenary powers of the United States Congress. According to several status polls, nearly half the population believes that Puerto Rico should join the United States as a state.) is not NPOV, it is not accurate since the constitution of Puerto Rico clearly states the relationship as a compact between the people of Puerto Rico and the United States ( official translation into english: Article 1 Section 1. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby constituted. Its political power emanates from the people and shall be exercised in accordance with their will, within the terms of the compact agreed upon between the people of Puerto Rico and the United States of America.) This is not the opinion of a political group or ideology like the opening suggests. We can all argue whether this compact has been fully respected by the US or not, that is another story. I propose substituting this paragraph, my preference, with the name-history or meaning of Puerto Rico (from borikén to san juan to it's final name Puerto Rico) as it is standard opening in wikipedia articles or working with the current paragraph, not my preference but can work with it, into an accurate NPOV opening.--vertical 08:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on what you want to do here. If I'm reading it correctly, you want to change the current opening to say ... something other than what it says currently... but I'm not entirely clear on what you want to change it to. I agree it's currently inaccurate (although that's an entirely different animal from NPOV) and should be corrected, but what's this about borikén => sj? Tomer^talk 07:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Israel or Taiwan, to name 2 examples, there is no political 'controversy' as an opening, PR has a political theme in its opening(an inaccurate one). I am proposing some sentences that explain the origin of the name. Borikén or Borinquen was the name of Puerto Rico before the spaniards arrive, it is a taino word, after the spanish colonization the name of Puerto Rico was Isla de San Juan Bautista and it's capital was named Puerto Rico (english: rich port)...at the end, San Juan was named the capital and Puerto Rico became the name of the entire country.>User:Vertical12315:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is odd. We're agreed on that. Do you have a proposal for what it should be changed to? I've got some ideas...look for them in a day or so... Tomer^talk 10:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon users major edit

An anon user has proposed the following edit:

Demographic Controversy

Because Puerto Rico is part of the United States race is defined by the same way it is in the mainland United States by the US Office of Management and Budget. Due to racism in Puerto Rico a large number people who would be black/African American in the mainland US mark their US Census forms as white. The racial mixture of Africans and Europeans in Puerto Rico is almost the same as in the mainland United States. Unlike Halle Berry who has has one black parent and one white parent stated: "When I was younger, living in an all-black neighborhood the other kids thought I was better then them because of my light skin and straight hair, then we moved to an all-white neighborhood and that was a culture shock. I'd been used to being around all black kids?I'm black, I realized very early in my life that I wasn't going to be this mulatto stuck in the middle, not knowing if I'm black or white." http://www.dvdwolf.com/Biographies/B/Halle_Berry.html Many in Puerto Rico do not have a white and black parent and are very similar to the racial heritage of many black/African Americans in the mainland United States. Yet, a large number of Puerto Ricans will mark white on the US Census forms.

Puerto Rico

Official 2000 US Census has for the US territory of Puerto Rico

White 3,064,862 80.50%

Black or African American 302,933 8%

American Indian and Alaska Native 13,336 0.40%

Asian 7,960 0.20%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 1,093 0%

Some other race 260,011 6.80%

Two or more races 158,415 4.20%

Total 3,808,610

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US72&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010

Race

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population, Public Law 94-171 Redistricting Data File. Updated every 10 years. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm

Definition:

The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups. The racial classifications used by the Census Bureau adhere to the October 30,1997, Federal Register Notice entitled,"Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity" issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Oddly, 90% of all people from Mexico have American Indian origins. But, they do not maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. This could be a major reason they are not classified as American Indian in the United States. It is the only race category on the US Census where a person must maintain their tribal affiliation or community attachment to be classified by the race they are. Mexico by race Population: 103,400,165 (July 2002 est.) Amerindian/mestizo (American Indian/Native American) 90% white 9% other 1%

White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes "Asian Indian," "Chinese," "Filipino," "Korean," "Japanese," "Vietnamese," and "Other Asian."

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as "Native Hawaiian," "Guamanian or Chamorro," "Samoan," and "Other Pacific Islander."

Some other race. Includes all other responses not included in the "White", "Black or African American", "American Indian and Alaska Native", "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" race categories described above. Respondents providing write-in entries such as multiracial, mixed, interracial, Wesort, or a Hispanic/Latino group (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban) in the "Some other race" category are included here.

Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple write-in responses, or by some combination of check boxes and write-in responses.

It has some obvious problems (POV, grammar to begin) and it has been removed. I do not beleive that it is vandalism and is clearly a good faith edit where the user put a lot of thought and hard work nto it. I think it should be discussed before all or any of it goes into the artcile, but it should not be wholesale reverted without discussion. Thoughts or edits?Gator (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop revertign adn start talking. Please.Gator (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Come over here and we can discuss your edits, and find a way to include them in the article. Banes 16:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're not understanding how this is supposed to work. We are hear to discuss your edit and I ahve no doubt that we are all opened minded about your edit. It just neds to be discussed is all. What you ened to do is actually come here and talk with us about the edit. Why you think it shoudl be there. Why it's NPOV and all that. Putting a peer reviw tag and not saying a word is not the way to go. Thus, I have removed the tag adn willc ontinue to do so until you actually talk. No harsd feelings, you're clearly new here, but this is how it's done and w're willing to condider your edit, but it need sot be discussed and a consensus needs to be gained.Gator (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was hoping that he would start the discussion, but I guess I will. The biggest probelm isee with the edit is that it's POV. The racism thign needs to go and the whole Halle berry thing is irrelvant. I think the basic controversy regarding how PRs c lassify themself and the defintional problems that arise is interesting and notable if ot dealt with somewhere else int eh article. In short, this needs to be edited down quite a bit but should be part fo the artcile in some shorter NPOV form.Gator (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's how I would edit down:

Demographic Controversy

Because Puerto Rico is part of the United States race is defined by the same way it is in the mainland United States by the US Office of Management and Budget. A large number people who would be black/African American in the mainland US mark their US Census forms as white. {[citation needed}}. The racial mixture of Africans and Europeans in Puerto Rico is almost the same as in the mainland United States..

Race

Official 2000 US Census has for the US territory of Puerto Rico:

White 3,064,862 80.50%

Black or African American 302,933 8%

American Indian and Alaska Native 13,336 0.40%

Asian 7,960 0.20%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 1,093 0%

Some other race 260,011 6.80%

Two or more races 158,415 4.20%

Total 3,808,610

[4]

It's just a quick job, but maybe this?Gator (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

People should get to see how people that have almost the same European and African mixture are called white in Puerto Rico but, not in the mainland US.

This is interesting because if one is of a European mixed heritage of English or German or Irish and African, in the mainland US they are typically black. Especially when that mix took place a while back. But, for some reason if a person has a European Spanish mix with African suddenly in this US territory they are considered white.

Abolition of Slavery in Puerto Rico http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/slaves.html

On March 22, 1873, the Spanish National Assembly finally abolished slavery in Puerto Rico.

By that time many historical black colleges and university had already been founded in the mainland United States.

see map

http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/264/270568/African_Slave_Trade.GIF

Thank you for commenting, but lease stop adding the peer review tag, it's not appropriate. Ok......not sure what your point is. Do you have comments on the edits I made to your edits. How do other people feel about this?

This info should be added under the demographic portion for Puerto Rico, because it is in fact inform that people talk about. NPR a while back talked about race issues in Puerto Rico.

• First, Puerto Rico is not 'part of the US' (please see US supreme court insular area cases for more info),it is a Commonwealth associated to the US which is classified as an unincorporated teritory.

second,US census pop does not include PR, PR gov.uses the US census and it's use is highly controversial and the classification is a joke in Puerto Rico since PR is not an inmigrant nation the classification used by the US is totally out of touch with reality and only fits in US social structure . The US census is a dress that doesn't fit PR or any Latin American country since it ignores mixtures of races and goes by a historic segregationist view (White is white, Black is Black) , Latin America is basically a Mullato set of countries with different degrees of shades and racial mix. The terms WHITE, BLACK ,HISPANIC are terms used by the US government but outside of the US have different meanings and are looked in another context. Latin America's racial profile is one of mixed races and the shades are many, that is one reason why Colombia doesn't have a color profile in it's census. It is useless since there is no minority affirmative action and where the question is Colombian (a)y(b)No. The same thing happens in Puerto Rico where there is a homogenous ethnicity that goes from european spanish descent to taino indian to african all rolled up in one with many degrees and shades apart. If you understand this you understand demographics in Puerto Rico. Adding this paragraph is inaccurate,misses the point and is a US racial pov.--vertical 17:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Peurto Rico is part of the United States.

The US controls: interstate trade, foreign relations and commerce, customs, administration, control of air, land and sea, immigration and emigration, nationally and citizenship, currency, maritime laws, military service, military bases, army, navy and air force, declaration of war, constitionality of laws, jurisdictions and legal procedures, treaties, radio and television--communications, agriculture, mining and minerals, highways, postal system, Social Security, and other areas generally controlled by the federal government in the United States.

The major difference between Puert Rico and the 50 states are the local taxation system and exemption from the Internal Revenue Code, its lack of voting representaion in either the houses of the US Congess and US Senate, the ineligibility of Puerto Ricans to vote in the presidential elections and its lack of assignatioin of some revenues reserved for the states.

• Please read the Constitution of Puerto Rico 1952, UN resolutions regarding Puerto Rico 1953 -present, read the Insular Cases (US Supreme Court cases regarding unincorporated territories including Commonwealth), read US Law 600. You are ignoring all of the basic facts. Your opinion in this matter is inaccurate.--vertical 19:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Tren Urbano

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tren_Urbano

In 1993, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) selected the Tren Urbano as one of the Turnkey Demonstration Projects under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. During 1996 and 1997, seven design-build contracts were awarded for different segments of the Tren Urbano Phase 1 system.

The construction project was plagued by delays, contractual disputes between the government and companies involved in the undertaking, as well as investigations into possible mismanagement of funds. The project cost has been estimated around USD $2.25 billion. The rail system was officially inaugurated on December 17, 2004.

The US Bureau of the Census does do the Census for Puerto Rico

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US72&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010

• Puerto Rico is not 'part of the US'

This is not debatable, it is a fact.

see :the insular cases, which are US supreme court cases, decided that unincorporated territories belong (since they are a non sovereign) but are not part of the US. See Downes v. Bidwell (1901) and Balzac v. Puerto Rico (1922) Also Puerto Rico has the right to self determination recognized by the US and United Nations.

To say that Puerto Rico is part of the US is to ignore basic facts from the US form of government and also ignores the political status of Puerto Rico since 1952. This issue is a yes or no. No gray areas.--vertical 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The insular cases merely established the legal precedent that fulll constitutional rights do not automatically extend to all areas under American control. That is differne then saying that territories were not a "part fo the U.S." whatever that means. It just means that, in this case, PR is not completely a part from the U.S. the same way Ohio is. YES, there is a gray area, this is hardly black and white, because what does one mean when they say that PR is not "part of the U.S.?" People attach different meanings to that phrase. PR is clearly less than a state and is therefore, not completely "part of the U.S." but that does not mean that is can't be partially part of the US and partially outide the U.S. (it's included withint eh jurisdiction of the U.S. First Cuircuit Court of Appeals, has its own U.S. District Court, federal law applies to the islands, those born their are U.S. citizens...etc. These line of cases establish this gray area. It's not even close ot blakc and white, that's a fact.Gator (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Vertical clearly have a strong persoanl POV on this, so there's no point in arguing.Gator (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not my opinion, it is the US Supreme Court opinion and the one that rules over the Puerto Rico-US relationship. It is clear, it is simple, this is not open for interpretation. US is the 50 states and the district of columbia. The unincorporated territories including the Commonwealth belong (since they are not sovereign) but are NOT PART OF the US. Read the US supreme court cases. This is a fact.--vertical 19:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've read those cases, they do NOT establish that PR is not a "part of the U.S." they merely decline to extend all contitutioanl protections to PR automatically. You're misinterpreting the case law, somethign that I,a s an attorney, am frequently accused of doing. It's clear that by your defintion of "part of the U.S." PR is not a part of it, but for me and many others, the definitions of "part of the U.S." is a little broader than yours, making PR is a gray area. PR is clearly not independent (which is why you and the members of your party are pushing for that) but are not a state either. They're a territory,a commonwealth (whatever that means) which puts them in this gray area. Not black, not white, but gray.Gator (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Let me explain to you the way constitutional law professors explain this to undergraduate students, since it can get confussing if you are not familiar with PR-US relationship laws. Your hands are part of you, your ears are part of you, your legs are part of you, your watch belongs to you, your earing belongs to you, your nose is part of you. part of something that forms a body vs possesions that belong to you. The body is the US (50 states with a federated capital) the possesions are the territories (some have no autonomy like Palmira Atol in the pacific which is incorporated, others have a smalll amount like Guam which is an unincorporated territory by an organic act also Virgin Islands which are not self governing and then we have unincorporated territories that are not ruled by an organic act , have a high degree of autonomy,self governing and the relationship is agreed upon a compact or treaty like in the case of Puerto Rico which recognized by the UN as self governing states with a constitution).--vertical 19:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, con law professors are not Jesus Christ and not all con law professors (I hope) would explain somthing as compelx as this as simple as the way you put it. That's just one way of defining a "part of the U.S." and it's a bit simplistic and narrow. It's clearly not the way the US Supreme Court definesit or it would have no jurisdiction over the islands and would deal with disputes re: PR the same way they do with the Netherlands. PR is in a gray area. Some possesions andterritories are more to the black side adn some are more to the white side, but it's still gray. Stop trying to simplify this. Oh and the UN doesn't determine what is and is not a "part of the U.S." so that holds little to no water.Gator (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This is determined by the US GOVERNMENT... you need to do a lot of reading. This is not an opinion, this is not a point of view. This is a fact whether it fits or not your point of view or mine.--vertical 19:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok ok, we'l just never agree. You say white and I say gray. We'll never convince each other so, have a nice day.Gator (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've named verifiable sources of the Insular Areas that still rule to this day. I suggest you read again Downes v. Bidwell (1901) and Balzac v. Puerto Rico (1922). United States is the 50 states and the capital district (that is why they do not have recognized SELF DETERMINATION like dependencies have, they are part of the Union). This is not a gray area, it is what it is. Puerto Rico is a non sovereign state and the right to self determination is recognized by the US and by the United Nations. Puerto Rico belongs since it is not part of and it is not sovereign (US insular cases)--vertical 20:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What more is there to say, I said we would never agree and yet you continue to argue and push your POV. Let it go.Gator (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

---

The point of this article addition is to show the demographic issues in Puerto Rico. The US Bureau of the Census does do the official Census for Puerto Rico, because the island is not a country and is under full US control.

The US Census shows a very huge white population on that island. Yet, if these people spoke English and had the same European African mix, there would be no debate that the majority of the islands population is black/African American. But, just because they speak Spanish suddenly the population on that island is confused to what race they are.

As far as the Halle Berry thing, it is not irrelevant. It is very relevant. It shows how odd Puerto Rico is when it comes to race vs. language. How does language in Puerto Rico determine that one is not black/African American? Where on the mainland US if Puerto Ricans live there and spoke English as a first language they would be black and during legal segregation in the United States these same Puerto Ricans would have had to ride in the back of a bus and go to black public schools.

That article should be added to the Demographics portion of this Wikipedia. Because of the fact that the article currently posted is not a full truth.

This is what Wikipedia says so far

During the 2000 US Census Puerto Ricans were asked to identify which racial category with which they personally identify. 95.8% answered with only one choice. The breakdown is as follows: [12]. 80.5% described themselves as "white"; 8% described themselves as "Black"; and only 0.4% described themselves as "Native American." These #s demonstrate that racial terms are relative, not absolute, and highlight the potential for confusion when they are used in a definitive and distinct way.

That statement alone says there is an issue that people who are actually black are listing themselves as white on the US Census. There's no why in the world that the US teritory of Puerto Rico is 80.5% white. Anyone who travels there can see that with their own eyes. They look the same as typical light skin African Americans, who even have wavy hair too.

On second thought, the article adequately covers the same issues without being POV (with the same statistics) I say leave the entire thing out.Gator (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Anon. article should not be incorporated into the demographic section. Also, your racial statements ,and I quote Gator:if these people spoke English and had the same European African mix, there would be no debate that the majority of the islands population is black/African American. But, just because they speak Spanish suddenly the population on that island is confused to what race they are-end of quote, reflect a huge ignorance of the entire history of the spanish caribbean, latin america and therefore Puerto Rico. This is an international project, to view demographics from a limited US racial point of view is POV. We are not here to distort the facts to accomodate an ideological or racial agenda.User:Vertical123

Hold your horses buddy. I NEVER said that and DO NOT insuate that I am a racist! Check again, do better factr checking before opening your mouth and STOP throwing race around and putting things in people's mouths! That may have been in the edit( that I did NOT write and I am arguing that it should now not be included), but those were never my words and I think you knew that. You're out of control. Gator (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Not at all. Spanish and Portuguese slavery in many ways was more harsh than the English and French system. They Spanish and Portugese were known to work their salves till the death and then restock. Like the English and the French. They also forced their slaves to speak a European language, this one being Spanish. They also forced their slaves to become Christians and to drop their African religions. Like the English and the French, the Spanish also had offspring by they African slave women.

Oddly though the former English colonies and the former French colonies ended slavery sooner than did the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies. Brazil abolished slavery in 1888 and Abolition of Slavery in Puerto Rico was 1873.

---

There were a few articles written that talked about not many people wanted to be black in Puerto Rico. If I find them I'll let you read them.

Both Vertical and Gator have valid points, however, let's stick with facts. I have a question for Gator? How can you suggest that Vertical is an independist? Vertical has not declared to be one so therefore this is a point of view by your part. For all we know, Vertical could be a PPD voter, PPDs' do not want statehood nor independentism. I will say my experience as Puerto Rican, I left Puerto Rico in 1989, and there was no racial division between Whites and Blacks at the time, and trust me, just look at Menudo's photo, there are two VERY blond, caucasian Puerto Ricans there, so there are very Caucasian and very Black people, not just half and half like some have suggested here. But no division as far as I know. About Latino Blacks in the United States classifying themselves as "White", where did that come from? That should be disputed. There are no official numbers as to what percentage of Black Latinos rank themselves as White in the census. Furthermore, all Black Latinos Ive met in the States identify themselves as Latino, or Hispanic, and when I signed up for college, I read the phrase "Black Hispanic" under the "race" question. I hope this helps end all further discussions about this controversial issue. Both of you make good points as far as the political status, however. Let's keep the article to facts and not change it until Puerto Rico's status is resolved later in 2006. God bless you both! Antonio Sancho Panza Martin

Logical assumptions based on contribution history and POV re: PR's status. Doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together.Gator (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think the status will be resolved in 2006? I'm rather skeptical on that... Somehow, I doubt we'll see even the first status referendum (change of status: yes/no) this year. The declaration by the presidential task force was too non-committal in my opinion. —Nightstallion (?) 11:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Gator, most PPD voters are absolutely against statehood yet not for independence...Vertical can say that and still be a member of the PPD. About Nightstallion's question, I don't know if the status will be resolved in 2006, but I sure hope it it resolved soon, and Puerto Ricans are granted what they vote for. Antonio Pshychochic Martin

[Copyright material removed; provide a link. Short quotes may qualify as fair use, but this is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Guettarda 15:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ]

One thing you have to bear in mind here is that race is a social construct. American ideas about race are still heavily influenced by the "one drop rule" - people with trivial African ancestry can be African American. Similarly, while in Jamaica mixed Indians are considered Indian, while in Trinidad they are not. I had a friend who was "white" in Trinidad and "black" in Canada (but taken for Cuban in Miami). In census data, race is based on self-identification. That self-identification is based in part on how they are perceived by their communities. It isn't the job of any outsider to tell people "what race they really are" (except in places like apartheid-era South Africa or Nazi-era Germany). Guettarda 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Activists Shine Light On Racism

By Iván Román Orlando Sentinel

October 21, 2001

......With this tribute to their African ancestors on Columbus Day -- the commemoration of the clash of two worlds -- the Puerto Rican Alliance Against Racism began its Journey Against Racism 2001, a month of events to educate people about racism that many here deny even exists.

Some would call it a seemingly impossible task -- to snap out of denial a society that intentionally or unwittingly cloaks its prejudice under the guise of extolling the indigenous, African and Spanish racial mix that molded the Caribbean.

.......Having 81 percent of the people in this multiracial society call themselves "white" on the 2000 U.S. census is but one signal of the level of denial. Some claim it may just be a rejection of the rigid racial categories that have shaped U.S. history and society.......

......But the activists think otherwise. Some joined the alliance because their own mates denied their race or heritage. Some hate that most students in Loiza, the town with the largest proportion of black people, need special academic help. The area is one of Puerto Rico's poorest,........

Here's a link to the full article

http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2001/vol5n43/ActivistsShineLight-en.shtml

Guettarda, Puerto Rico is part of the United States. This island has never been in idependent nations since Europeans arrived there. It was only independent when Native Americans lived there.

Puerto Rico was ceded to the US in 1898 as a result of the Spanish-American War. This was after '400 years of colonial rule that saw the indigenous Native American population nearly exterminated and after African enslaved people were brought to the island as free labor.

Puerto Ricans were granted United States citizenship in 1917.

Popularly elected governors have served this US territory since 1948.

So, in fact since Puerto Rico is part of the United States its people are the same as those in the rest of the United States. People from Puerto Rico are more ethnicly and culturely alike to the mainland US than what Hawaii was when it was the Territory of Hawaii. In In 1900 Hawaii was granted self governance.

On July 6, 1898 Hawaii was formally annexing as a United States territory. Because they were born in a United States territory, they were legal U.S. citizens.

Hawaiian's spoke Hawaiian. Puerto Ricans speak a European language (Spanish). Hawaii was populated by Native People (Pacific Islander) and later white Europeans and the later Asians.

The population of Puerto Rico is made up of former black African enslaved people, white Europeans and Native Americans.

The population of the mainland US was mostly made up of black African enslaved people, white Europeans and Native Americans until the early 1900s. Mainland US spoke in its history only European languages after the country was formed (English, Spanish and French). Today the main language is English.

So, if a person is black in the US they should be black in Puerto Rico. Not, white as the US Census shows.

3,064,862 (80.50% White ) of the island's 3,808,610 say they are white.

But, you are right. No one can tell a person what race they want to be. With that said. What if Almost all of the black/African Americans said they were white?

Currently the 2004 estimate from the US Bureau of the Census says there are 34,772,381 Black/African American living in the US. What if 30 million of them say they are white on the Census. Does this change the fact that their genetics show they are black?

It would be interesting to see what percentage of Puerto Rico's population would be black if genetics were used.

I think the edit Demographic Controversy should be added to the article on Puerto Rico, because it is a truth that's not talked about. When someone comes to Wikipedia they come to read important facts on subjects. If someone were to do a report on Puerto Rico and use Wikipedia as the current article is written. Those people would not see the Demographic Controversy that exist in this US territory.

So, who will let me know to what extent this edit can be added to the main article on Puerto Rico?

Feedback on adding the "Demographic Controversy section

Well, despite having "racial' comments beign wrongly attribuited to me, I've expressed my opinion as "against: as has Vertical, but what the consensus here folks?Gator (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you Gator, in my opinion veritical's POV is purely biased and totally wrong. My 2 cents --70.45.65.85 01:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The demographic section is fine as it is, I would add that demographic in the country of Puerto Rico belongs without any doubt to the same context as demographic in Cuba and the spanish caribbean region including the northern part of Colombia, Venezuela, Panama and Dominican Republic. The only difference between Cuba, the spanish caribbean and Puerto Rico is the political status, For example Cuba and Puerto Rico had the same level of social structure development since both were the last colonies of spain in latin america, the brotherhood of these 2 nations can be find in many historical writtings from Hostos to Betances to Jose Marti, the difference is that after 1898 one became independent the other a colony and in 1952 a commonwealth but both have the same racial structure of foremost Spanish descent, Caribbean Indians and Africans (In Puerto Rico the mix is higher than it is in Cuba with Cuba being less mulatto and with less indian traits while in Puerto Rico indian traits are much higher than african). Racially Puerto Rico is extremely similar to Venezuela (I've been there several times and it is like being in San Juan) Both have a strong spanish blood mixed with caribbean indian as second and african to a lesser degree . Dominican Republic due to its separation from Spain much earlier than the countries of Cuba and Puerto Rico and the fact that shares the island of Hispaniola with Haiti the demographic goes in the opposite direction , African descent , Caribbean indian and Spanish blood in order of importance.--vertical 17:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of Puerto Rican history. Puerto Rico's culture and perception of race is undeniably different from that of the US. Whether they were por-Statehood, pro-Commonwealth, or macheteros, the majority of people I spoke to asserted Puerto Rico's uniqueness and nationhood. If the comment "So, if a person is black in the US they should be black in Puerto Rico. Not, white as the US Census shows" were true, then you could say "since January 6th is a day of no special significance in the US, then it should be a day of no special significance in Puerto Rico". Race is a cultural construct. The culture of Puerto Rico is distinct from that of the US. Why should it be any more surprising that race is defined differently in Puerto Rican culture? You can't buy lechon asado on the side of every major road in Oklahoma. And while Mexican-Americans in Lansing, Michigan call everyone capron, I wouldn't advise calling anyone that in Puerto Rico.

To look at the proposed section line by line:

Because Puerto Rico is part of the United States race is defined by the same way it is in the mainland United States by the US Office of Management and Budget.

This is unnecessary - at best it's worth linking the word "race" to an appropriate article on the definition of race in the US.

Due to racism in Puerto Rico a large number people who would be black/African American in the mainland US mark their US Census forms as white.

This assertion is made as a "fact". Since it deals with people's motivation for making a decision, to be asserted as a "fact" it needs to be based on research and questionaires, etc. So, at best it would have to say "According to X [source given]..." But more than that, in my experience it isn't that 80% of the people in Puerto Rico feel that they can escape racism in Puerto Rico by calling themselves white. To begin with, no one is supposed to know how you identified yourself on your census form. Most Puerto Ricans I have spoken to assume that they have white, Taino and African blood. But US census forms require you to pick one single race. In a society which does not have the one-drop rule, and in which there has always been a continuum between the racial groups, it makes sense for people to pick the thing that they are most.

The racial mixture of Africans and Europeans in Puerto Rico is almost the same as in the mainland United States.

This is misleading. To begin with, most Puerto Ricans are white-taino-black; most mainlanders are white.

Unlike Halle Berry who has has one black parent and one white parent stated: "When I was younger, living in an all-black neighborhood the other kids thought I was better then them because of my light skin and straight hair, then we moved to an all-white neighborhood and that was a culture shock. I'd been used to being around all black kids?I'm black, I realized very early in my life that I wasn't going to be this mulatto stuck in the middle, not knowing if I'm black or white."

This is (a) a mainland anecdote, which is greatly at odds with Puerto Rican perceptions of race, (b) an unencylopaedic anecdote - information about the perception of race in Puerto Rico should be based on reliable academic sources.

Many in Puerto Rico do not have a white and black parent and are very similar to the racial heritage of many black/African Americans in the mainland United States. Yet, a large number of Puerto Ricans will mark white on the US Census forms.

Of course, because in the US, with its one-drop rule perception of race, people of mixed black and white ancestry are black. Puerto Rico has a difference culture. They are Puerto Ricans, but if they have pick a race, well, they'll "trade up" rather than "trade down" and unlike African Americans, since they don't have a cultural identification of Africanness, they can do it without seeing themselves as "selling out".

The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau...

This most definitely does not belong anywhere near the article. Link to the appropriate article. Guettarda 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Feedback on adding the "Demographic Controversy" section

I agree that Puerto Rico has some things in common with Cuba. But, the biggest difference is Puerto Rico is a US territory. Colombia, Venezuela, Panama and Dominican Republic were also former European Spanish colonies and may also suffer from the same identity crisis. Meaning people feel better of themselves if they consider themselves white and not black. That's something that is common in the western hemisphere. It could be because being black in the western hemisphere is views as a negative thing.

As far as American Indians being higher than Africans in Puerto Rico is not in fact true either. History has shown that when the European Spanish, French and English first arrived in the new world and return many of the native populations on the Caribbean had died off and many of the rest were killed by the Spanish and French.

Example document supporting this:

---

.....1493, during his second voyage, Columbus founded Isabela, the first permanent Spanish settlement in the New World, on Hispaniola. After finding gold in recoverable quantities nearby, the Spanish quickly overran the island and spread to Puerto Rico in 1508, to Jamaica in 1509, and to Cuba in 1511. The natives fared badly. Many died in one-sided armed conflict with soldiers and settlers, or in forced servitude in mines and on plantations. Others died of diseases to which they had no immunity. By mid-century, the native Ciboney of Hispaniola and western Cuba were extinct, and other tribes, including the Arawak of Puerto Rico, were nearly so. ....

http://www.nps.gov/fora/spain.htm

Most white Spanish people who are of mixed heritage in Puerto Rico are mixed with to a larger amount with Africans, who were the largest population by the time the islands were repopulated with the new comers

Saying Puerto Ricans have higher Indian traits compared to their African triats could also fall under "being black" is negative and bad. No one wants to be black when given the choice in the western hemisphere it seems, when give a choice to mark something else on a Census form.

Dominican Republic people also say the same thing like people from Puerto Rico.

The Census for Dominican Republic shows the following:

Ethnic groups:

white: 16%

black: 11%

mixed (black and white): 73%

Population: 8,950,034 (July 2005 est.)

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/dr.html

That really means 84% of the people in Dominican Republic are black.

Haiti Population

black: 95%

mulatto: and white 5%

Population: 8,121,622

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ha.html

The issue of being black pops up in the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies more than it does in the former English and French colonies. In the former French and English colonies if a person has any African blood they are considered to be black. Wonder why in the former European Spanish and Portugese colonies there is a fear to be called black and wanting to be called white instead?

It seems that a main reason why someone may not want to add this topic to the Puerto Rico article could be, because they do not want people do know anything about the Demographic Controversy that is in fact a topic. Just as the article states above that was in the Orlando newspaper. It exist and it is in fact true.

......

Yeah, that's the reason, you got me....Gator (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Gator1, I'm not sure I understand your comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

To begin with, the Dominican Republic data shows exactly what the problem is with US census categories - the fact that there is no "mixed" category. As for the Taino thing - recent studies have shown that the majority (~53% in the sample population, iirc) of Puerto Ricans have Ameridian blood. With regards to English and French islands - for one, it is false to say that not all people of mixed blood are black - I know many white Trinidadians (both "socially" white, and people who consider themselves actually white) who have African blood. Puerto Rico was not a plantation colony, not during the slavery period - most settlers were Spanish or Mediterranean peasants, who intermarried first with the Taino population, and later with the African slave population. The African population intermarried with, and was largely acculturated into, a mestizo population which identified as Spanish. African slaves never made up a substantial proportion of the population of Puerto Rico or Santo Domingo - the number of slaves imported is dwarfed by the number of free European immigrants.

This was not the case in the British and French islands because the population was overwhelmingly African, and there was no white peasant class. This was not the case in Barbados, where the "poor whites" (Redlegs) did intermarry with the African population to some extent (but remained "white"), and in populations of Barbadian origins who relocated to St Vincent, St Lucia and Grenada. Trinidad was different - there was a wealthy mulatto class there, which is some cases "married up" enough to become socially white. While a Trinidad white friend of mine commented once that her grandmother knew every family, and which ones were "real white" and which ones were "passing", the younger generations did not know, and no longer cared. Guettarda 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Guettarda

You say that recent studies have shown that the majority (~53% in the sample population, iirc) of Puerto Ricans have Ameridian blood.

So, you're saying that less have black African blood?

That does not even seem logical. Since Puerto Rico was over run by the black Africans that the Spanish brought there as slave. There were hardly any Native Americans/Indians left by the time the black Africans came to that island. History is documented showing this. Plus, most white Spanish men and white Spanish people in the New World thought of Indians as savages. If the Indians didn't die from diseases, the Spanish, French Portuguese and English killed them off.

Why is there such a disregard of the large number of black Africans that were in Puerto Rico? Is there some shame at being black there?

And if 53% of Puerto Rican have Amerindian blood, how on ether are over 80% white? That just sounds foolish.

It sounds more like denial than acceptance of the black Africans that over populated most of the colonial European's Caribbean slave colonies.

After all most black/African Americans in the mainland came into that country from the Caribbean slave markets.

Mulattos might also constitute a significant portion of the population of Puerto Rico, a commonwealth territory in association with the USA.

However, recent genetic research indicates that, in relation to matrilineal ancestry as revealed by mtDNA,

Female

61% have inherited mitochondrial DNA from an Amerind female ancestor

27% have inherited mitochondrial DNA from a female African ancestor

12% showed to have inherited mitochondrial DNA from a female European ancestor

Male

70% of all Puerto Rican males have inherited Y chromosome DNA from a male European ancestor

20% have inherited Y chromosome DNA from a male African ancestor

10% have inherited Y chromosome DNA from male Amerindian ancestor

Because these test measure only the DNA along the matrilineal line and patrilinel lines of inheritance, each test only measures the one individual out of thousands, perhaps millions of ancestors.

They cannot tell us exactly what percentage of Puerto Ricans have African Ancestry.

Now, don't you think it's odd they can tell how many have European and Amerindian blood?...Yet, for some reason they can't tell how many have African blood? This seems mighty strange or intentional.

I not trying to make a fuss. But, I'm just saying that there is more information showing most people in Puerto Rico are not white like the Census shows.

I think this is a good topic and this information should be added to the article on Puerto Rico. Only because a person might need this information for research.

References

I would like to create a concensus on how references should be inserted. As of now there are very different notations which in turn creates broken or unusable links. I propose that either invisible references or notes be used. If anyone agrees or has better ideas please post below.

Also can we stop the demographic, political non-sense. The Puerto Rico talk page looks like a kindergarden debate which will never be resolved if people are not objective.Joelito 23:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Joelito, I dont see anything wrong by persons showing what they think about, I find it very interesting reading these comments as it helps me gain more knowlege, this is what wikipedia's for, right? So please stop being to pushy, if you dont like it, then dont read it. It looks like you want the world to revolve around you, sorry to burst your bubble, it aint that way. So please let people express themselves and by not telling them what to do because you don't like it. My $0.02 cents.

Have a great night, and keep commenting on this subject it is very interesting.--70.45.65.85 01:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I think we should be objective. I also think that Wikipedia is a great source for the world. People might be doing research on the demographics of Puerto Rico and what is stated currently in the article does not give the clear total truth.

I think this the portion above should be added to the Puerto Rico article.

---

So, when will we find out what portions of this addition can be added to the main article for Puerto Rico on Wikikpedia? Who will pass on this answer?

--That article is an essay, an opinion, a pov opinion. Get official academic or gov. resources from Puerto Rico, that opinion essay pasted in the pro statehood webpage from a us. paper columnist does not qualify.

Economy

I have deleted the following paragraph: "Official economic reports tend to ignore the significant economic influence of the "Black Market" on Puerto Rican culture. Many transactions between individuals and also with businesses go unrecorded to avoid payment of Puerto Rico income taxes (25% of income over $50,000 as of 2004). Also, the illegal drug trade is a significant but undocumented source of income for the islanders. In "Pay to the Order of Puerto Rico", by Alexander Odishelidze, almost one-third of the illegal drugs that enter the United States do so via Puerto Rico, with this black market trade directly employing 100,000 to 125,000 individuals, and engaging approximately 500,000 people in collateral businesses that sustain the trade."

The reasons for the deletion are lack of references and also the only reference given is by an author considered to be biased and very POV [5]. Also I find it difficult to place a paragraph on the drug market economy in Puerto Rico when the Economy of Colombia, a country notorious for drug traffic, does not mention its drug market economy. I do not mind re-adding the article once it is properly referenced (eg. verifiable data). I know it says that the paragraph mentions that Odishelidze's book presents this information but I would prefer that the book not be mentioned in the paragraph. It looks like advertising. The proper way is to place a note or reference on the book. Joelito 04:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Did You Know?

I have been watching the did you know section and have noticed that it is getting a bit large. I really like this section because most of the information presented was unknown to me. I propose that the section be remade so it resembles the did you know section in the wikipedia main page. Interesting facts could be replaced every week. I propose the creation (or modification) of a template to replace the section as it is now. I have made a modified did you know template which can be found here. New suggestions could be made at either a talk page or at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico. Also an archive of the interesting facts could be kept at either a talk page or at a newly created article. I would like to create a consensus before making any modifications to the section so I encourage everyone to please go see the template and comment on the suggestions I have presented above. Joelito 17:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! (We can also easily format the current version to match the one in your user page example). My only concern is that I don't think there would be enough trivia out there to be able to come up with a new one every week. Although that doesn't mean that we can't have Did you know - Puerto Rico created and have all the facts listed there while the main PR page only contains a small subset of these. --Stux 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We can due it monthly. I doesn't have to be weekly. Smylere Snape 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's how I like it. We Puerto Rican brothers working together for a common cause. Joel, do what must be done! Tony the Marine 03:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to compare General del Valle with Patton, McArthur, et al? Sure he was a great man, and brave, but I don't think most historians would place his contributions on the same levels as these others. Not to diminish his contribution, you could do a whole hell of a lot and not be on, say, Eisenhower's level. If nobody objects I may come back and reword this. --ThirtyOneKnots 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge suggested

Discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Did You Know - Puerto Rico. One of the things being suggested is to merge the DYK article with the DYK template used in the portal and have one common store of facts. Those interested may want to participate in the discussion... ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

1858 Census, Reference

Can anyone provide a reference for the following text: "A census conducted by royal decree on September 30,1858, gives the following totals of the puerto rican population at this time, Whites 300,430 (many of the inhabitants, classed as white, have, both in their features and manners, definite traces of the Indian race), Free colored 341,015, Slaves 41,736, Unclassified 127, this cenus also clearly verifys puerto ricos diverse Ancestral heritage" ? I have searched but have yet to come up with anything. A reference would be great. Joelito 01:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Motto - John is his name

What an unusual motto. I suppose it relates to John the Baptist and not Juan Ponce de León? Can someone write a little something about the history and significance of it please.

The seal dates back to 1511 and it indeeds relates to John the Baptist which was the original name of the island and is also a quote from the book of Luke. More information may be found hereJoelito 15:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm no expert in Spanish, but I was convinced that American Spanish lacks interdental fricatives and that therefore all these [ð] in the IPA version of the Spanish name are, at best, very odd. Even more so since in Castilian, it would be [estado] and [asoθiado], if I'm not wrong. I'll rectify if nobody can explain why this should remain as it is. JREL 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the pronunciation presented is one that reflects how an English speaker would pronunciate Puerto Rico. The pronunciation is not made to represent how someone with knowledge, albeit small, of Spanish would pronunciate Puerto Rico. Joelito 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the text reads "(Spanish: Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, IPA [es'taðo 'libɾe asosiaðo de 'pweɾto 'riko])", clearly conveying the impression that the IPA there stands for the Spanish name. I doubt that English speakers would bother much about the full name in Spanish... we'd much rather stick to Puerto Rico, wouldn't we. Mind you, I'm neither American nor Spanish-speaking, so my authority on this is limited.

I think it does make sense to include the IPA of official names in official non-English languages -- it certainly seems to be the practice in most articles. However one could question this practice for Spanish, where pronunciation is so clearly encoded in the spelling. JREL 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I, myself, have questioned IPA for Spanish pronunciations for the reason you described but I have opted to maintain the pronunciation for the sake of standarization of the articles. Joelito 22:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the dental fricatives with stops... and added the stress in [asosiado]. Hope that's correct. JREL 09:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Consistency on Pedro Albizu Campos

"He would eventually die by what he claimed was a conspiracy set in place by the U.S. Federal Government.", says the article.

The wording seems to reflect that he claimed his death was a conspiracy after he died. How can this be so? How can he say his death is due to a conspiracy if he is not dead yet? This sentence needs, at the very least, re-wording, but it should also contain some sort of reference. It is also a controversial sentence...

Hari Seldon 12:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC -6)

I have added a reference and changed the sentence to "He would eventually die in prison while serving time for seditious conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. Government in Puerto Rico". I hope this fixes it. Anything else that can be improved?Joelito 17:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You write that he died in prison, but the source you quote says he has been pardoned in 1964 en died in Hato Rey in 1965. Otto 12:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. My mistake. Thank you for correcting the information. Joelito (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

ASSERTING UNREF and FACT templates

1. Giving this topic a quick read, there are a number of statements that are borderline POV
2. I've spent time on the Island at the naval base at Roosevelt Roads, and I can't believe this assertion in the article:

/* Politics */ Assert FACT TEMPLATE (Citation needed) in This effectively raises costs of goods to two or three times that paid in the United States.

Ludicrous, it's all taxes? Aside from the fact that the cost of living 'market basket' per 'economists' is highly unlikely to be 2X or 3X costs in NYC, LA, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco which costs in the USA: Median, Average, Modal? These all vary widely region to region.

1. It is doubtful that average housing costs are anywhere near half of any of those listed cities. If things are so bad why aren't we getting more Puerto Ricans as immigrants? That wave peak in the fifties or early sixties iirc.
2. Prices here 15 miles north of Boston vary widely two towns over, as do they 30 miles north in lower-middle New Hampshire, or 30 miles west in sparcer populated areas of Massachusetts. I'll grant you that things requiring water or which take a lot of water to produce (Coca Cola, other soft drinks) are relatively expensive as they are on all the Caribean Islands—for that is a function of scarce local resources and warer is nearly always scarce at that latitude, but there are offseting cost savings as well.
3. Shipping costs to an out-of-the-way location have nothing to do with costs? I have relatives on St. Thomas, and most prices iirc, are fairly similar, and if anything, more expensive in St. Thomas and the other US Virgin Islands.
4. No doubt there are rural mainland towns one can call 'typical' in the US where one might make those numbers fit, but the statement needs supported by an authorative source, such as the US Dept. of Commerce. For my part, I suspect the typical town is not very typical at all.

FrankB 03:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that 2 to 3 times is almost certainly an overstatement. However, it cannot be denied that Puerto Rico's imports suffer from double tax. Taxes are paid in the U.S. port where the goods are rerouted and then Puerto Rico's 6.6% arbitrios (taxes) are also paid upon arrival. The Roosevelt Roads base did not pay these arbitrios hence things are cheaper at the base (same thing happens in Fort Buchanan). I will look for a reference for the sentence or I will remove/rewrite it all together to avoid controversy. Joelito (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

Because past processes for self-determination in Puerto Rico have not had Congressional support, the political parties in power have manipulated ballot options to favor the alternative of their predilection. The other political parties tend to resist and voice their concerns over the legitimacy of the process. Ultimately, every vote fails as either non-binding upon United States Congress or because viable and appropriate status options have been excluded from the ballot.

This is very opinionated. Any opinions in the article on the electoral process should represent multiple perspectives and be referenced. -- Beland 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect census information removed

Puerto Ricans living on the island are not counted among the Hispanics residing in the U.S.; in fact, they are not included in the U.S. population count at all, although all Puerto Ricans are statutory U.S. citizens. Puerto Rico also is not included in the Current Population Surveys that the Census Bureau conducts to update its decennial census.

This is quite untrue, something which should be patently obvious by the fact that census data for PR is reported in other sections of this very article! Census 2000 results can be found at http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/pr.html and yearly updates at: http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php -- Beland 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this sentence, "Puerto Ricans living on the island are not counted among the Hispanics residing in the U.S.; in fact, they are not included in the U.S. population count at all, although all Puerto Ricans are statutory U.S. citizens." was true though. Joelito (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the difference. You mean that Puerto Rico was included in the U.S. Census, but that its population is reported separately from some "national" figure. The wording here would definitely have to be clarified, and I'm not entirely sure one demographic category out of all the categories people in PR would fit into (being Hispanic, which not everyone there is) would bear singling out. Anyway, is there a reference for this claim? -- Beland 00:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not consider the fact relevant enough to be included so we can leave it out. Joelito (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico uses the service of the US census, that is all to it. US population does not include PR neither PR are counted as hispanics since PR is not a state neither an incorporated territory. It is a self governing commonwealth. I agree with Joelito. Keep this data out.Vertical123 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Food

The topic should not be listed in this article. Someone keeps adding it and it makes it seem much more of a vetnarary description. It is not helping this article. Since food is much more a biological necessity it is well-known we all need it to survive. An internal link to the topic of "Puerto Rican Gastronomy" should be created, but I say that the section does not belong in this article. It is extremely poorly written and makes it seems that all Puerto Ricans eat rice. For example, I do not. Many Puerto Ricans such as Puerto Rican Jews and Muslims also have set dietary guidelines by their religious beliefs/peers. --XLR8TION 13:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rice is not from Africa. It is of Asian origin. Most beans and legumes were product of the Americas. You apparently are poorly educated in the history of food origins. Your contributions will be deleted until you learn how to write in legible and do not utilize cerebral mistruths that your brain churns out. Logical reasoning is important in order to prevent future generations of people like yorself from roaming the planet--XLR8TION 14:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Rice was brought to Spain by the Moors in the 8th century. --iMeowbot~Meow 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Rice originally is from the Euphrates region of Iraq, which is the cradle of civilization. Due to trade between the Middle East and the Zaghreb (north Africa), the Moors brought rice to the region, and eventually to Spain. Iraq is part of the Asian continent. --XLR8TION 03:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

LANGUAGE

There is already a section on language. To the editor submitting a seperate section on language, please refrain from doing so. The topic is redundant and is poorly written. Dialect differences does not signify a change to language. Puerto Rican Spanish is not a pidgin language, therefore please do not paint it as so.--XLR8TION 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, the Spanish language article mentions the language's origins. There's no need to reiterate it here. Xoroa 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to take it out! It dosen't appear on any edit screens. Very confusing. CharlesMartel 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)CharlesMartel

It was removed already. It might reappear but as note to experienced editors on the topic, it should be removed from article. --XLR8TION 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Racist language, expletives, or any other hate-related language will not be tolerated on this site. Your entries will be deleted and your ISP will be blocked. Please refrain from hate-filled language.--XLR8TION 20:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To the supposedly college educated moron who is editing pages on the internet without any valid point, your educational attainment only shows that you either went to one of two colleges: Clown or Barber. Addressing people as "son" signifies an deficiency in your vernacular and also addresses the issue that your oafish methods are juvenile. Your ignorant, unbiased POV will be ignored from this site. Please move to a site like MySpace where you can express your POV and find some time to chat with others in your ilk. --XLR8TION 11:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) - CobaltBlueTony 16:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

99% of the population is in school

In the education part of the artical, it stated "About 99% of the population attends elementary school and 67% pursue further education". ......now I find that hard to believe that almost everyone in Puerto Rico is under the age of 11. Some one needs to clarify and fix this obvious mistake. --User:Darijo101 1:30, 8 Jul 2006

Clearly you misunderstand the sentence. It means that 99% of people have attended or are attending elementary. Joelito (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan Areas of Puerto Rico

Greater San Juan is not the only one,theres Ponce,Mayaguez,Aguadilla,Arecibo and maybe Humacao..I think I read it from the Census..

Here is the information. [6] I must say it is totally ridiculous. It includes more than 25 municipios in the San Juan-Bayamón metropolitan area. Even Yabucoa is included, LOL. I will study with more detail how they obtained the data and what parameters they used for classifying the metropolitan areas. For now, I am very skeptical on the information available in this link. Joelito (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it sounds funny for us but by US standards its correct.I'm pretty sure they're counting Yabucoa as part of the Caguas Metropolitan Area...instead of counting Caguas as part of the Greater San Juan area...

No they are not counting Yabucoa in the Caguas area. It is in the San Juan-Bayamón area which makes, to me, this information unreliable. Joelito (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't have Humacao as a Metropolitan Area,I think they should have it...and Yabucoa should be part of the Humacao Metro Area..

The San Juan MSA is large because the San Juan urbanized area is also quite large. Every municipio containing a significant proportion of the continuous urbanization would be included plus additional outlying municipios. --Polaron | Talk 03:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And it looks like some areas have merged as of the December 2005 definition. Here is the current list of metropolitan areas and their 2005 populations:

• San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo (2,579,799)
• Aguadilla-Isabela-San Sebastián (330,291)
• Ponce (264,433)
• San Germán-Cabo Rojo (143,429)
• Yauco (122,652)
• Mayagüez (112,545)
• Guayama (84,180)
• Fajardo (80,138)

The San Juan one does seem overly large. --Polaron | Talk 03:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

Please make a disambiguation page for this topic, and a mention that this page is about the US commonwealth, not the board game

68.95.141.74 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Racial Lies in PR

Anyone on the east coast of the US knows that most PR's are mixed mulattoes who have mixed with each other. Every now and then you will find a more black looking one or in very rare instances, a white looking one. As is the case with most of Latin America, being white is what they would love to be known as even if their appearances are very far from it.

Many PR's refuse to accept their 'blackness' and instead cling to a false ideal of whiteness and when all else fails - the long killed off PR natives. When you watch your local news, they say: "the suspect was either black or hispanic." Now we know that Mexicans and blacks are not often mistaken for one another, but PR's and Caribbean hispanics often are - because they ARE the same people! I have seen and experienced many Mexicans who ask African-Americnas if they speak Spanish. They were thinking that they were PR's.

PR's, like Dominicans and others are ashamed of their African blood. This is why the darker will always try to mix with the whitest one that they can find. Also if they can find a white person, that's even better for them! They are trying to (in their minds) breed out the black. It can't be done. The more shocking part is, the culture of PR is almost 100% African! This includes the so-called Spanish culture which is based on an African one. Yes, check it out my friend...

Of course this does not apply to all, but it does apply to most. As the article indicated, most PR's choose white. Listen to what they say and you will see that they always make a distinction between 'blacks' and themselves, but they can never say what they are, except for the made up term - "latino." That means nothing. They put ANY label on themselves but black. Wikipedia needs to get to the truth. In some countries and cultures, they don't want to tell the truth even if anyone with eyes can see it. In other countries, more powerful countries tell them what they are even if they do not agree, like in the so-called arab countries. The article needs cleaning or more refinement. It should point out that PR's do not look white, but they look almost enirely like African-Americans(light-skinned type in general) despite what 'official' numbers say.--71.235.81.39 04:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments: You obviously must be of African decent. All research known to date shows that most Puerto Ricans have a European Male in their DNA and a good majority have a European mother. This makes perfect sense since Europe occupied the island for over 400 years adn the natives of the island were pretty well extingusihed in the first 100 years. Given the the current popultion of Africans on the island, at it's highest level, is only 8%, saying that Puerto Ricans have African blood is senseless and a lie. Get real, look at the demographics of most countries and the african boold line has become part of it - so Puerto Rico is not an exception to this. Even the current influx of African to the island is documented coming from other parts - mostly the Dominican Republic, who are mostly Africans. I myself am a proud Puerto Rican and have never been confused as being black. We PR as a people are decendents of Spanish and other European People. While by your writing above simply means that you are trying to discredit the rest of us - Shame on you. I'm Puerto Rican and of a noble spanish family, and I am not black. 15:08, 12 May 2007

Why don't you come to PR and watch for yourself,the great majority of us puertoricans are white.--BoricuaPR 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There certainly is a lot racial denial in Latin America. I agree with you that 80% of Puerto Ricans are not white. But I've heard that the Puerto Ricans who come to the US mainland are mostly the darker-skinned ones, which means that NY PRs are not actually representative of the island's population. So even if not 80%, it's still likely that a majority of Puerto Ricans are predominantly white. If you have genetic studies that prove otherwise, then post them. But until then, these are facts: 80% of PRs say they're white, and genetic evidence say most are mestizo. So you see, there's no reason for Wikipedia to go with your claim that they're black. SamEV 04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote is no claim, it is fact! There are very few PR's who be considered white. I am not talking about any white person who went to live in PR either. I know it is a fantasy of yours, but it is just that. You would not dare say that PR's are white to a group of skinheads or KKK members! If the 'darker ones' as you put it, are the ones moving to NY, then how do they afford to if in general, they are not the wealthiest? When I look at immigrants from other countries, it is the whitest looking ones (Lebanese, Argentines, Portuguese, etc.) who move here, not the darker ones. The whiter ones usually have money and want to live the life that is no possible in their lands. I will accept your mostly white claim ONLY if I see a KKK or skinhead group leader agreeing that you are white. White where you are from does not qualify in the US. If it did, then just about everyone would be white - or even black!--71.235.81.39 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How absurd. Who died and made white supremacists the authority on race? You have pretty low standards. It's also very presumptuous of you to think you know what I'd dare or not dare say and to whom. But also, what makes you think I'd lower myself to talking to them?

White where you are from does not qualify in the US. Not with some, such as you. But it qualifies with the government and tens and tens of millions of people. That's good enough. Your personal approval is neither required nor requested. I think you'd be better off posting at Stormfront. I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms there ... Most important of all, you're not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source and neither is Stormfront.

P.S. I'm Asian, Black, Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Native American, Some other race, Two or more races, and White.

Get the point? SamEV 23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• My 2 cents: THe problem of PRs race choices has in the census has been talked about a lot. There are even some studies going around. THe fact is that most people choose white when they are actually mestizos or mulatos. A LOT more that 15-20% or PR is of black descent. The census is no longer very reliable and this has been mentioned by authorities. Charleenmerced ^Talk 14:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Guys, stick to the discussion of improving the article. If all reliable sources point to the fact that 80% of Puerto Ricans say they are white, then that information is included in the article. If you believe that this is wrong, FIND SOURCES, and include the argument in the article. If you think this issue should be presented in an article, then consider including it in the Puerto Rican or Puerto Rican-American articles, again, with sources. Remember, we must always include all valid and duly sourced arguments in order to maintain a neutral point of view. However, arguments which are based on Original Research, cannot be placed in articles, including...

"As is the case with most of Latin America, being white is what they would love to be known as even if their appearances are very far from it."

"Many PR's refuse to accept their 'blackness' and instead cling to a false ideal of whiteness and when all else fails..."

"PR's (Puerto Ricans), like Dominicans and others are ashamed of their African blood..."

"...PR's (Puerto Ricans) do not look white, but they look almost enirely like African-Americans (light-skinned type in general)..."

If reliable sources are found which can evidence these arguments, then feel free to present them on this talk page first, then, when consensus is reached, include it in the article. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 16:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, with all of the lies, it is hard to find a 'source' for the truth. How about looking at the people as a source? Also, the 80% white figure is not a valid source either as it says that most PR 'say' that they are white. Anyone can say that they are white or black. The politics makes them shy away from blackness and towards whiteness, as they feel that it will help them out in society. Let's get real, PR's are not Cubans, who I can honestly say that they do have what I and most would call white, as opposed to mulatto. Also, there is no mestizo in the Caribbean. In the meantime, I will try and find a 'source' to show the truth. The way these people think, it is like reading Islamc history and assuming that everyone is an arab because of the name.--71.235.81.39 01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is one opinion from a PR [7]. I would consider him a source, as you cannot find opinions of one's self in a book.

Read, read, read! It will give you a good idea on both sides of the coin! [8] [9] --71.235.81.39 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I see you obtained external sources to your claim. I've read all of them and believe only the second and third source seems to directly back up part of your claims. The first source is an essay on racial discrimination towards all Puerto Ricans and the "statehood fanaticism" syndrome of certain "isleños".

The sources are really good. I think that both the second and third sources are worth mentioning as a counter-argument to the "81% european ancestry" argument in the Puerto Rican article and the "80.5% described themselves as "white" in the Demographics section of the Puerto Rico article. However, I believe that a full counter-argument should be made at the Puerto Rican, Demographics of Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans in the United States articles, since they discuss these issues in detail, much more than the Puerto Rico article. I personally think that the counter-argument should be more about Puerto Ricans' own racial identification and acceptance towards themselves, and less about whether they are predominantly "white" or "black". After all, the third source points out that: "in the 2000 census,... 42 percent of those identifying themselves as "Hispanic," "Spanish" or "Latino" also identified themselves as a member of "some other race" besides black or white. An additional 6 percent said they were members of "two or more races"[10], which doesn't necessarily mean that Puerto Ricans chose whiteness over blackness, but rather there is a large uncertainty between the community. I think this racial uncertainty within the Puerto Rican community should be the balancing argument (between white and black arguments) in the articles.

But remember: stick to information in the sources only, and do not stray beyond the boundaries of No Original Research. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: This is ridiculious. Given the fact that Spain occupied the island for over 400 years, and that the Tanios were killed off within the first 100 years, most Puerto Ricans have to be white. Also, during Spain's occupation, large numbers of Europeans flooded the island from Ireland, France, and Germany just to name a few. The Africans that were brought to the islands were brought as slaves to replace the Tainos population that had become extinct. While most Puerto Ricans are light brown or white does not mean that they are mixed - Just visit Spain, Italy, France, or anywhere in Southern Europe and you will see a great population with the same complextion - and they do not cosider themselves to mixed. This is just a lie perpetuated by a small segment of "Blacks" that were born on the island that want ot tell the lie that Puerto Ricans mostly have African blood. We, Puerto Ricans, are direct decendants for the most part from Spain, and other Europeans, and should be proud of it. Likewise, those how are from predonminately African Roots should be equally Proud. Just look at the laungage, Culture, and people and it's clear like the United States, Puerto Rico is divided by Europeans or Africans. The other issue is that most Puerto Ricans that relocate to the United States tend to live in areas with a large poulation of African Americans and naturally there's a lot of blending and aligning. But this does not change the fact of who we are as a people. We are a proud spainish heritage directly from Spain and we should not allow a minority of people to taint who we are! 12:17, 12 May 2007

This debate is pathetic, based on a comment made by an racist user that has never been to the island in his entire life, being black, white, yellow or gray isn't bad but we must be accurate and the mayority of Puerto Ricans are white there is no way around it, not to mention the ridiculous notion that Cubans are any more closer than Puerto Ricans to "white", hell their indians lasted more than ours some of them as far as the 19th century. -凶 22:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The Culture paragraph looks broken, in particular, the sentence "A popular unofficial symbol of Puerto Rico would be the : "jibaro" which struggled under the introduction by US of new traditions, cultures and festivities unlike their own in the decades of the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's. " - rstinejr, 8 Nov 2006.

Yes, it sucks. I will try to copyedit and clean it up. Joelito (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone is uploading Magic: The Gathering images in place of the designated images.

Comment about Puerto Rican Indians

This version lacks the cute line about the Indians thinking that Columbus et. al. were gods, due to their skin color, found in http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Puerto_Rico. :) Kyk 06:01, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I will read the article and see if I can incorporate it to the English version. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Maio 04:12, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contrary to my opinion on the use of the word "mulatto" (see below), I do think these tales about the innocence of natives are in bad taste. We only have the Spaniard colonists' stories about it. -- 171.64.42.82 03:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Even in Jr. High there we are taught that the Indians believed the Spaniards were Gods. -- Antonio Half a Meter Martin

Can't say I know more than you do...but since I LIVE in Puerto Rico, I guess that I COULD say my opinion. Basically it is true that we only have the Spaniards' versions, but don't know if you've heard it..but there's a story about a Spaniard named "Diego Salzero" (or something like that... The story goes that he made the Indians carry him on their shoulders so as to not get his feet and legs wet. The Indians, trying to see if they were "Gods" or not, let him fall and drowned him. When they saw he died, many were mad and that also started the "revolutions" of the Indians in PR. Also, I think the Spaniards, being all Catholic and doing the "Incisicion" (killing people that weren't Catholic in bizarre and barbaric ways)shouldn't have made themselves look like Gods or tell the Indians they were gods, if that's the true story.

                                      -RickRodz

The 1511 story about Diego Salzero was a fantacy story, created by the white Spanirds. It was originally a true story based upon the fact of the drowning of the Spanird Salzero and later it took on the twisted Christian revival of Christ to make it look the Taino thought that the Christians could not be killed. My people the Jatibonicu Taino of Boriken (Puerto Rico), had learned in an arreito gathering of Caribbean island Caciques (Chiefs) that, the white people were not gods as they had learned this back in 1492. The War-Chief Caonabo of the Tainos of the island of Haiti had killed the 48 spanirds that had built the Spanish fort called El Fortin Natividad back in December of 1492. Los Tainos de Boriken Viven! -JuanPerez

Statehood Fanatics

It appears some one with the IP address of 67.100.190.218 has posted nonsense about Puerto Rico. He/she has encouraged his POV for a political optiopn that the island has constantly rejected for over 108 years. Is there anyway to block this user from posting nonsense again? --XLR8TION 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well,that person shouldn't do that but you know statehood has lots by really low margins

Statehood is only granted to a territory if approved by 2/3 majority of the House of Representatives and a majority in the Senate. People viting in favor of statehood have to realize that in order for a statehood petition to move forward in Congress an extremely plural majority (over 80% of the island's population) would have to vote for this status. If not, the statehood for Puerto Rico is simply a pipe dream. There are many ignorant people in the USA who don't know anything about the island or even that the island is under US control. Do you think with the rise of xenophobia against Spanish-speaking illegal immigrants with an economy that is way poorer than Mississippi, the poorest state in the Union, that the USA would admit a Spanish-speaking nation into it's fold? I don't think so. --XLR8TION 21:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Congress (with 2/3 of the House and a majority of the Senate) can make a state. The territory technically does not have to do anything besides have a republican form of government. Similarly, if every single Puerto Rican voted for statehood, Congress would not be required to grant the island statehood. Chiss Boy 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the political party that pushes for statehood is the mayority, however they have lost recently due to an union betwen the other two parties, the Puerto Rican status issues has become the main political focus of the island for the last year, racism and paranoia aganist imigrants probably isn't as strong aganist Puerto Ricans since they are already american citizens, but it might slow a status solution

Neither the NPP nor any organized group of statehood supporters have ever been able to claim any so-called "mayority" in the political stage of this island. In fact, the results of all plebiscites clearly show that those who oppose statehood have always been the absolute majority. Flybd5 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet those who support independence has had a very tiny portion of the vote. In each referenda, the largest grouping was for the status-quo, the second largest for statehood, and trailing third for independence. Chiss Boy 19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This country is so polarized that neither statehood nor independence are viable alternatives for which the population can choose from unless we take the ELA choice out of the picture. And even then I don't think a clear winner will be decided. Besides, a clear and overwhelming choice of either one is not a guarantee that they'll happen. I believe Guam has had numerous plebiscites with an huge majority favoring statehood, but Congress just ignores them.

Are making the Guam thing up? At least for recent history? Puerto Rican votes on statehood/independence/etc. make the American news; no mention of similar things in Guam come up. And Guam has a higher per capita GDP than Puerto Rico. It is not probable that Congress would "just ignore them." It might reject statehood on account of Guam's small population, and it's geographic size and location, but it probably wouldn't just ignore it. Chiss Boy 20:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On GDP, GUAM's GDP was 2.5 billion compared to Puerto Rico's $78.96 billion in 2006, and the per capita GDP for Guam was a $15,000 compared to $19,100 in Puerto Rico. Source CIA FACTBOOK. And yes Guam has repeatedly pushed for an altered status, in fact using the ELA/Commonwealth status of Puerto Rico as a guideline towards statehood. However, the referendums have all been non-binding in Congress and any discussions of statehood tend to die in committee.Mad05963 09:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So I believe that the real problem is not necessarily the status itself, but rather the political parties who routinely make false promises to their constituents, which in turn creates sort of like a "fanatic" base. If we take them out of the status equation, then the issue is not so controversial anymore and we can finally have some intelligent discussions and arguments about statehood, independence, or free association. Additionally, politicians would be forced to work on real concrete issues and problems, instead of patriotic (whether PR or US) soundbites and photo-ops.

That said, as far as the article is concerned, the politics section should only relate to brief and concise technical and historical data which is easily verifiable. The section is already pretty long as it is. - Mtmelendez 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note

[moved from article] The article should point out how the United States' investment was not only little, but barely worthy of note. An example would be the U.S. Caribbean involvement in the Sugar industry and was a major contributor on disabling one of Puerto Rico's top economic source.

The article should also point out how Puerto Ricans only receive 1/4 of their Social Security (ex. SSI takes 100k, but a Puerto Rican will only receive 25k for his/her lifetime), how the ports are over-taxed by the federal government and other economic drawbacks that the U.S.A. exercises against the island, which does severely damage the island's economy, for undisclosed reasons. Example of the cause and effect of U.S. involvement: the elderly population is becoming unproportionately larger to the young population. The cause is due to the younger population seeking jobs outside the island, because the employment in the island is almost hereditary and nonexistent.

The U.S. does not collect Federal Income tax (from paychecks) because over 50 percent of the population would be entitled for a full refund, and further display of cruel and improper taxation would trigger an U.N involvement. Also, an increase in the bureaucracy for the sole purpose of collecting federal employment tax would be a strain on the delicate U.S budget; thus collecting is unrealistic. Personally, it would ultimate prove Puerto Rico is part of the American Empire as a colony instead of a Free Associate State (legal term for we own you, but will not do anything for you), which would violate U.N resolution for de-colonization. These and other issues should be explored in this article, which I'll happily post when my anger subsides.

Alexzandro Rivera

Inserting everything you have said would make the article heavily biased plus many of your remarks are your own ideas and conclusions. Furthermore, the U.S. invested heavily in Puerto Rico's infrastructure during the first half of the 20th century and continues to inject large quantities of money into Puerto Rico via grants, aid, etc. Joelito (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE also - Cuba was not ceded to the US in 1898, instead it became independent.

Nope. It fell under American control, and is still under American control (it is less than a state and is ruled by the Union (of American states)). Chiss Boy 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rican citizenship

The government of Puerto Rico issued an official document certifying the Puerto Rican citizenship. This is a historic day. It is the first time since the establishment of the constitution of 1952 (Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico)that it is officially recognized and a citizenship document is issued. The Puerto Riccan government announced that starting in about 45 days anyone born in Puerto Rico (there is pending those born outiside PR but parents are born in PR)will be able to apply for the official document that certifies the Puerto Rican citizenship. reference:[11] and [12] --vertical 16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I was asked for my opinion in regard to the Puerto Rican citizenship and here it is. Yes, it is true that it is a historical event (I expect this fact to be incorporated into this article) and it reaffirms what I have always believed. I have always stated that, even though Puerto Rico is not an independent nation, Puerto Rico is a "nation" with its own culture, traditions and variation of the Spanish language. However, it is interesting to note that every Puerto Rican born between December 10, 1898, after the United States and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris and March 2, 1917 when the Jones Act was signed into law by United States President Woodrow Wilson, was a Puerto Rican citizen. If I an correct, this action should create a tug-of-war between those who are willing to accept a Puerto Rican citizenship as stipulated and those who only want an American citizenship. It will be interesting thing to see what the reaction will be now that (according to what I have read) Puerto Ricans will be able to have a dual citizenship. Tony the Marine 01:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Occupation

Puerto Rico was not invaded by the US, it was liberated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.143.59 (talk • contribs)

As I have explained to you on your talk page, the U.S. invaded Puerto Rico. They had no intention of liberating Puerto Rico from Spanish rule. Furthermore, if PR was liberated how come it is neither sovereign nor a state? Joelito (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Because PR chose to become a commonwealth. If it wasn't liberated, how come it isn't on the UN list of non-selfgoverning territories?

To both of you, that depends on your views. Puerto Rico was freed from the shackles of Imperial Spanish rule--but then came under control of the United States. While under American rule, they accrued more rights than they probably would have if they remained with the Spanish. However, they were less free than they would have been had they won an independent country. Chiss Boy 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, Puerto Rico was awarded an Autonomous Charter in 1897 by Spain, which provided for greater sovereignty than it even has now, The Spanish American War however broke soon after the charter was to go into effect. The Charter gave Puerto Rico complete control over its economy, judicial system, and the right to form its own constitution, all of which are not available under the Commonwealth system.Mad05963 09:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not on the list because the nation who wields the most power in the UN is the USA. Puerto Rico was not given any political options from the date the US invaded the island (July 25, 1898) to the date it became a commonwealth (July 25, 1952). Whereas Cuba became independent (on paper) four years later in 1902, Puerto Rico was administered by the Department of the Interior. Liberation stems from the word "liberty." If liberty did exist after the 1898 invasion, then Puerto Rico would be independent now as statehood was not really a viable or attainable status in the eyes of an English speaking, Protestant majority country like the United States. --XLR8TION 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So Virginia does not have liberty? PR was guarenteed all freedoms granted to US citizens, freedoms they didn't enjoy under spain, and no, the US doesn't just get their way in the UN, try reading the news for a change.

You are incorrect in both counts. Virginia is neither free nor sovereign, it is part of the USA and Puerto Ricans do not have all freedoms granted to US citizens (e.g. voting for the president). Joelito (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Virginia is most definitely free, by your definition no one is free, as there is always a soverign entity over their little piece of the planet. PR's lack of votes is by choice. PR has had many chances to get statehood, and will continue to have them, they have thus far FREELY decided to remain a territory due to tax benefits, etc. Should Bavaria be on the UN list of non-self governed territories? What about the city of Perth? Wake up and smell the common sense dude.

American states and the federal government are supposed to be co-sovereign. The federal government has sovereignty in some areas (defense against foreigners, trade with other countries, etc.), with the rest of the sovereignty going to the states. However, de facto, sovereignty has been going more and more to Washington, D.C.. However, the federal government is not legally able to alter a state's geographic boundaries, and otherwise interfere in state affairs without the state's consent over several topics, which the federal government can do to territories (generally used for Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, etc.). If Congress decides to merge Puerto Rico and the American Virgin Islands into one entity, they can. The same with removing the territories' governments and appointing new ones, along with removing citizen status, as one Wikipedian mentioned--all against territorial citizens' consent. These things definitely could not legally be done to states or citizens thereof. Chiss Boy 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

When a territory becomes a state there is no way it can secede from the Union. Therefore if Virginia is unhappy with its relationship with the USA, it can't do anything to change their status. They have to remain attached, unhappy, and not free to separate from the US. DO you call this freedom? Hawaii was only given two choices in 1959: Statehood or territory status. What about independence? No, it was not offered in the plebescite that Hawaiians voted in. Do you call this freedom when there is no freedom of choice? The US had many opportunities to rid itself of Puerto Rico, but when the FBI harasses pro-independence sympathizers, arrest and tortures many of them, and only scare many so that they won't join the independence party of they would be blacklisted from employment and housing, do you call this freedom or oppression. I say that the latter term would apply. If Bavaria or Perth wish to secede from their respected countries, than they should be placed on the UN list upon consulting with their federal governments. XLR8TION 01:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether a state has the right to secede is hotly contested. You should know this (if you are an American). Technically, Texas and Virginia (interestingly y'all decided to use Virginia as an example) entered the Union with agreements made that they specifically could secede if they chose. Obviously in the case of Texas in the War Between the States that was not honored. Also, during the War of 1812, some of the New England states considered seceding and reuniting with the British. Chiss Boy 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I call it a social contract that maintains your freedoms and documented by our constitution. You know what? Illinois was given two choices, Statehood or territory. What about independance? Not how the game works, but if we had pressed for it enough, I bet it would have happened. Freedom of choice doesn't mean freedom of all choices. You are not free to randomly murder children. Does this mean you aren't free? Of course not. Your argument utilizes logical fallacy and absurd notions. Puerto Rico is a vital part of the USA, and has been given enourmous latitude exceeding that given to many states. US citizens in Puerto Rico have the same rights and responsibilities as other US citizens. Want to move to Illinois? Come on over, you can work and everything, just like you were from New Mexico or Florida. Puerto Rico hasn't been oppressed, but liberated, joining the free world in 1898, and securing a place there with much more self determination than other members.

It is a fact that Puerto Rico enjoyed more political liberties and autonomy under Spain ( see Carta Autonómica 1897[13])in 1897 than during and after the US invasion (1898) which established a colonial regime which did not give self government nor voting representation in their congress to puerto ricans like Spain did in 1987. This fact is widely recognized by puerto rican historians. --vertical 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet, if Puerto Rico stayed a part of the Spanish Empire, do you think that the island would become part of the country, and if so, at least until recently, the country was centrally ruled from Madrid. Puerto Rico would have MUCH less freedom than it would as an American state (which has been an option for it for some time--if the Puerto Ricans chose statehood, Congress would probably honor it). Also, in the short term, Puerto Rico was granted a degree of self-rule only few years after the Spanish American War. This makes sense after a war. Do you think that after an uprising, a Spanish Puerto Rico would immediately be given more freedom from Madrid? Chiss Boy 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico never joined the Free World in 1898. How ignorant can you be? The island's inhabitants were treated as property and the island itself was a spoil of a war that was caused by yellow journalism. Until the island joins it proper place in the family of nations, then it is not free. --XLR8TION 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Then vote for independence already and stop sucking in American money. Chiss Boy 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It should now be abundantly clear to all other editors that you are trying to push POV here, namely that Puerto Rico is and should be a soverign nation. A POV which neither reflects reality, nor the declarations of the United Nations.

You POV that Puerto Rico was liberated is absurd. Your redundancy is tiring. Dossiers that the US Government had on Puerto Rican nationalists and furthermore US propaganda at the time show "America's New Colonies" with an eagle stretching its' wings from the Philippines to Puerto Rico clearly show that the US government had no plans on letting go their new colonial playgrounds. If you call being conquered by another foreign power liberation than seriously you are both diluted and ignorant. --XLR8TION 02:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You've had several votes for independence (along with statehood and status-quo). YOU voted for the status-quo (with independence getting an miniscule amount of the vote). The United States is not holding you back from independence, if that is what you choose, Congress would probably let you have independence. Chiss Boy 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The majority of Puerto Ricans enjoy being part of the USA, they have voted as such. Liberation movements are non-existant. As per the Eagle, it's our natural symbol, and the wings were welcoming our new children into Freedom.

• Let me break down the comments of Mr. Unsigner.

1. To state "Liberation movements are non-existent" " without any prove is POV and false.

2. To state that "Eagle" is "our" natural symbol is also POV. Wikipedia is made up of thousands of users who do not consider the "Eagle" thier symbol.

3. "Natural" symbol? All birds are natural since they come from nature.

4. The "Eagle" is "not" the symbol of only the United States. Only the "Bald Eagle" species is. Mexico also has an Eagle as their symbol (Take a look at the Mexican flag).

5. The "Puerto Rican Spindalis" is the "national" bird of Puerto Rico and of the Puerto Rican people.

Stick to the facts and speak for youself and not for others. Do us a favor and sign your comments. What can we expect from someone who doesn't know the difference from the words "liberation" and "invasion"? Tony the Marine 14:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, that depends on your view. There was indeed an invasion, but the island was freed from Spanish rule (to be put under American rule--with a large degree of autonomy given in only a few years after effects of the war somewhat stabilized). Chiss Boy 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be deliberately obtuse.

1. Liberation movements exist. There is proof that the independance party of Puerto Rico is in the minority. RTFA, it's there plain as day.

2. No it isn't don't be deliberately obtuse. Puerto Rico is part of the US of A. The Eagle is the national bird of the USA, and is thus the natural symbol to use to represent the USA.

3. See above, though I will repeat, don't be deliberately obtuse.

4. You seem to like causing trouble by picking nits with obvious statements. The cartoon in question features the Bald Eagle.

5. Puerto Rico, as part of the United States, has the Bald Eagle as their national bird. To say otherwise ignores reality. Their regional bird may be the Puerto Rico Spindalis, but hey, Virginia's regional bird is the cardinal. Just like Puerto Rico, however, Virginia's national bird is the Bald Eagle.

My fellow Wikipedians, Joel, vertical and XLR8TION, when I read this discussion, I couldn't help but to laugh at the notion that Puerto Rico was liberated as stated by the know-it-all User who is not registered and doesn't even care to sign his/her comments. How is it possible that in this day of age there are people who pretend to rewrite history to suite their own perspective? Does the unregistered no signer know that Wikipedia is based on proven facts and not on what is considered his/her own personal unhistorical point of view? Puerto Rico was not liberated, it was invaded and that is an undeniable fact. Does he/she call liberation changing from one master to another? Puerto Rico was granted many autonomist powers and possibly on its way to independence when it was invaded. Freedom? Sure, but a restricted Freedom. Did the United States hold a consensus among the Puerto Rican people and ask them if they wanted to become a United States territory? Did the United States hold a consensus among the Puerto Rican people and ask them if they wanted U. S. citizenship? Did the United States hold a consensus among the Puerto Rican people and ask them if it was alright for the United States Armed Forces to bombard the populated island of Vieques? Does the United States permit Puerto Rico to purchase prime material at a cheaper price from other countries? So on and so fourth. Our youth is sent to fight and die in the military battles of the United States, but they are not allowed to vote for the President responsible for sending them there in the first place. Is that Freedom of choice?

I don't know, but I believe that this unregistered user is trying to take everyone here for a ride. Either that or he/she is trying to start a senseless debate. If he/she continues to add the term "liberation" and delete the proper term which is invasion, I suggest that he/she be banded for continuously posting a POV which on a repetition basis and as such maybe considered vandalism.

Tony the Marine 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Your unilateral decision that the "proper term" is invasion is in itself as POV as is stating that the "proper term" is liberation. Chiss Boy 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the records before making accusations. I haven't changed the article since taking this to talk. I am following policy and being courteous. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am a vandal.

Additionally, no youth from Puerto Rico is being "sent to fight and die in the military battles of the United States". Some US citizens from the US territory of Puerto Rico have volunteered for their country to fight and die for their country. But no one is out rounding them up and shipping them over.

I agree with you Tony., Apparently the poster is a ranting imbecile. I suggest that he be banned immediately because apparently it seems that he is a GOP-card carrying member of the Minutemen who hold animosity towards Puerto Ricans. --XLR8TION 14:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there, don't jump to conclusions about the guy simply because he disagrees with you about Puerto Rico. And why should a Republican Minuteman be banned (even if he did have animosity toward Puerto Ricans--which doesn't show in his comments. You seem to be seeing what you want to see about the user. He should sign some username, though. Chiss Boy 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I love Puerto Rico, and if anyone here needs to be banned it is you for making a personal attack.

Blah, blah, blah. To others on this topic, lets move on to more creative things. The notion of keeping the dolts entertained has become tiresome and boring. --XLR8TION 20:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Making personal attacks doesn't make you seem any smarter, or your point seem any more valid. I've brought up some counter points, if you'd like to debate this intelligently and civily, I am interested in your responses.

Stop dissing people just because they disagree with you. Chiss Boy 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the troll. If he/she was actually interested in intelligent discussion he/she would present intelligent arguments and sign the comments. Smylere Snape 04:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made quite a number of intelligent arguments, and responded to all that have been posted here, no one has responded to mine. As per signing the comments, I'm new here and just learned how. 130.126.143.59 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why's he a troll? Here's a clue: he isn't. He just has views contrary to yours, and you don't want to accept that. Chiss Boy 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, does making a statement such as the one which started all of this fall under opinion, and as such, subject to WP:NPOV?Demf 13:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

13:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No more than the word "invaded". 130.126.143.59 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikitonary: Invasion Noun 1. A military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government. By all historical accounts, the landing of US troops on Guanica was done with the objective of altering the established government, from a Spanish government to a military US government. Hence, the term "invasion" is accurate and does not represent an opinion. Smylere Snape 23:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet the term liberation is just as accurate: Puerto Rico was fighting against the Spanish--and the Americans removed the Spanish. Both terms are accurate, both terms are loaded. How about mentioning that the Americans removed Spanish rule, but then imposed American rule, and then in a few years gave some autonomy? Chiss Boy 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The word invasion is not a value-laden term. It is a description of an act. Liberation is a subjective term, its meaning changes from the point of view of its user. Whether the intentions are for good or for bad, if you land troops in a foreign country without that country's permission it is an invasion. In the case of Puerto Rico, many believed that the United States would immediately grant the island independence and supported the Americans, but many also fought against the American invasion, look at the battle of Fajardo where local Puerto Ricans defended the town from American troops. To them this was definitely not a liberation, nor was it for Henry K Carroll, the U.S. official sent to gauge the island's disposition after the invasion, who noted the frustration of most Puerto Ricans against a military government which operated marshall law on the island. And those "few years" you mention were actually 50 years, half a century, before self government was granted under the Commonwealth constitution, and only after said constitution was approved by the U.S. Congress.Mad05963 09:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1954, is that there in the article although searching for 1954 did not give a hit

When were they freed??

Associated Press Newswires It's Been 50 Years Since Worst Attack On Congress

By JIM ABRAMS February 24, 2004 Copyright ©2004 Associated Press Newswires. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON (AP) - A penny-sized bullet hole marks the desk used by Republicans when they speak on the floor of the House, a memento of the worst terrorist attack against Congress.

On March 1, 1954, four Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire from the visitors' gallery above the chamber. They sprayed some 30 shots around the hall and wounded five lawmakers, one seriously.

Amazingly, no one was killed even though some 240 members were on the floor at the time of the shooting, which happened 50 years ago Monday. Bullets penetrating the Republican desk barely missed Majority Leader Charles Halleck, R-Ind., who was hit by flying splinters.

It was a stunning act of violence in a body that, despite its openness to the public, had been relatively violence-free in its first century and a half.

There had been isolated incidents of lawmakers assaulting each other. President Andrew Jackson narrowly escaped an assassin outside the Capitol Rotunda in 1835. In 1915, a Harvard professor protesting U.S. policy toward Germany destroyed two Senate rooms with a bomb. A Vietnam War protester set off a bomb in a Senate restroom in 1971.

The first metal detectors at the Capitol did not appear until 1976. It was not until 1998, when a man with a history of mental illness shot and killed two Capitol Police officers, that the need to deal with security threats took on a real sense of urgency.

http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2004/vol8n10/ItsBeen50.shtml 194.215.75.17 10:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found it

President Carter freed the Puerto Ricans in 1979 after they had served 25 years in prison. Although the :Carter White House denied any connection, their release coincided with Fidel Castro's release of several :Americans being held in Cuba on espionage charges.

Or is it all an urban legend?? 194.215.75.17 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lakes

Xena91388 (talk · contribs) removed the statement that all of Puerto Rico's 17 lakes were man-made. All the lakes listed by the reference are man-made, but I was wondering about Laguna Cartagena, which is natural (as was Laguna Guánica). Also, depending on the definition of "lakes" what about the salt ponds (e.g., at Playa Santa and near the Cabo Rojo lighthouse)? Guettarda 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1. A laguna, by definition, is not a lake (look it up you'll find it). There's no question about what a lake is, and all of puerto rico's lakes ARE man made. You can not argue facts people.Cjrs 79 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Laguna Cartagena is freshwater, has open water - sounds like a shallow lake to me. Guettarda 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But it is not. If you look at the official website of the department of natural resources wild life it is described as a lagoon (it is much smaller than a lake)Cjrs 79 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Income

This sentence is quite difficult to deciever: Puerto Ricans had a per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimate of $17,700 for 2004,[1] which demonstrates a growth over the $14,412 level measured in the 2002 Current Population Survey by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.[24] In that survey, Puerto Ricans have a 48.2% poverty rate. By comparison, the poorest State of the Union, Mississippi, had a median level of $21,587, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, 2002 to 2004 Annual Social and Economic Supplements. -What is the "median level of $21,587?"- Household income? Can't be. Personal median Income? What is it compared to? To me this phrase sounds as if someone has compared Puerto Rico's GDP per capita to Mississippi's median personal income. An absolute no-no. GDP per capita mearues the economic activity in general and is not a measure of private wealth. The US for example has a GDP per capita of $42,000-yet the median personal income for those age 25+ was $32,140. While I think this is a truly great and informative article the section I mentioned above needs to bit of revising. Best Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 07:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanish African & Indian

I really wish people would tell the truth..there was much more than the Spanish as far as Europeans who migrated to Puerto Rico. and it's a lie that all Puerto Ricans are a mix of Spanish,African & Indio/Taino blood. --Ja§

A related but separate item, with some background comments on genetics. The first cited article (16)indicates that the gene pool was comprised of 45% European contribution, 37% African, and 18% Native American. The second article (17) on mitochondrial DNA (inherited from the mother only) found 61.1% as having Amerindian maternal mtDNA, 26.4% as having African maternal mtDNA, and 12.5% as having Caucasian maternal mtDNA.

These seem contradictory, but they're not. This suggests that many more European men than European women contributed to the island population. This makes sense as it is likely that conquistadors and other invaders, merchant sailors, adventurers, labourers and so on, coming to a new land, are more likely to be male. I'm not a geneticist and I don't have a citation, so I won't edit this into the page, but perhaps someone else would like to follow up (first added 10 January 2007) formatted today. Cooker 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This article in the Puerto Rico Herald talks about the results of genetic analysis which strongly suggest that the vast majority of immigrants to PR were Europeans, and that many of those mixed with the Taino population. Unless someone can find documentation showing or strongly suggesting that there was a significant component other than Spaniards for immigrants to Puerto Rico during its Spanish colonial period, I see no support for a statement saying that "there was much more than the Spanish as far as Europeans who migrated to Puerto Rico." The evidence so far points to strong support for the statement that the vast majority of our gene pool indicates Spanish/African/Taino ascendancy. Flybd5 15:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Politics Section

The phrase "colonial-Commonwealth election" does not seem neutral to me. It would make just as much sense - and be far more objective - if "colonial-Commonwealth" was omitted altogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.89.1.82 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Very long article

This article is becoming too long (57 kb). Even I have some trouble reading it. I'm tempted to tag it, but let's discuss it first. I think the Politics section could be shortened a bit, especially since it has its own article. - Mtmelendez 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That section is a mess. Please shorten it and maintain NPOV. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for! Separate PR politics into its own page and it will burn a hole on the platter of whatever hard disk its stored on! hehehe Flybd5 13:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk

And I quote: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Puerto Rico article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Thanks. Cjrs 79 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Puerto Rico

In the first sentence is states that the spelling "Porto Rico" is archaic. In know that the U.S. spelling was changed in 1932, but was it ever spelt this way in Spanish or was this just a mispelling in English? If "Porto Rico" was an old Spanish spelling, when did it change? I know this may be just trivia, but it has been something that has bugged me for a long time. 72.66.124.154 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

According to this site, on 1932 May 17 "the Congress of the United States approves a law to change back the name of the island from Porto Rico back to Puerto Rico. The name had been used (spelled) erroneously as Porto Rico by U. S. Navy personnel." Another site (at Google Books) offers more background to this explanation, as well as mentioning that several other languages, but not Spanish, spell the island's name as Porto Rico. EdK 22:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The word 'Porto Rico' appeared spelled like that on US currency circulated in the island for something crazy like 15 years. My grandfather should have a couple of these bills in his safe. I'll try to get an image of one up ASAP if there isn't one floating around online already.

So, if it was an error why do we keep saying is an archaic form? An archaic form would be and old form in the spanish language. Could we change the paragraph to say: Porto Rico (spelling used by the U.S. from 1898 to 1932) or something similar?Cjrs 79 12:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Official Languages

There is nothing in the Puerto Rican Constitution about official languages. The only thing it states about languages is that for someone to hold office he/she must speak either english OR spanish. and i quote:'Section 5. No person shall be a member of the Legislative Assembly unless he is able to read and write the Spanish or English language and unless he is a citizen of the United States and of Puerto Rico and has resided in Puerto Rico at least two years immediately prior to the date of his election or appointment. No person shall be a member of the Senate who is not over thirty years of age, and no person shall be a member of the House of Representatives who is not over twenty-five years of age. ' taken from: http://premium.caribe.net/~amvr/constitu.htm Cjrs 79 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On November 4, the second elections under Foraker Act were celebrated (registered voters 158,924). The Official Languages Act (under the Foraker Act) was instituted which declared that in all insular governmental departments, courts, and public offices, English was to be regarded as co-official with Spanish, and when necessary, translations and interpretations from one language to the other would be made so that all parties could understand the proceedings. The 1952 Constitution stated that no one could be a member of the legislature if they did not know both langauges, hence, the constitution unofficially endorsed bilingualism. [14]. --XLR8TION 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

EITHER NOT BOTH. They had to know one of the languages NOT both languages. Foraker Act was superseded by the constitution, which you can check on the actual congressional act confirming the constitution. Please check your facts. And, many of these things have been discussed before and are archived discussions, why can't you check those before editing on controversial matters? this is not the first time you've done that. take care. Cjrs 79 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's say that the Foraker Act had indeed made Puerto Rico's official language both english and spanish, then how could the governor's change the law by an act of the state legislature, and then why would some congressmen be so worried about the official language of the island when discussing a law allowing puerto ricans to decide their status in the past? If indeed the forakeract had stated that the official language were to be both languages, then this would be a settled matter. Another thing, many states issue their documents in more than one language that dones't mean that all of those are their official languages.Cjrs 79 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On changing the Spanish Official language to the Spanish-English languages under Rossello:

"Many political analysts saw this move by the pro-statehood governor as a way to move the island closer to statehood, which despite many attempts and plebescites, never came about during his two consecutive terms."

I'm not much of a political analyst, but this statement has a lack of NPOV and sounds like original research. It wasn't cited so I removed it. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit by MTmelendez: This is not a violation of the NPOV. The Young Bill of 1998 reiterated the need for Puerto RIcans to be fluent by the age of 10. Furthermore, recently Kenneth McClintock said that U.S. funding should be cut off if English is not taught in Puerto Rican schools. It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out that this is a move by a radical minority trying to impose statehood on a culturally-distinct nation as Puerto Rico. [15]. The only party that has made English in an issue in Puerto Rico is the NPP(PNP), not the PDP nor the PIP. The NPP(PNP) only wants one thing: Statehood. --XLR8TION 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To XLR8TION:
I will not revert your action, in order to fully discuss the issue here frist. I simply tagged the phrase with a verification needed so that we obtain reliable sources as to the assertion of the NPP's stance on the languages. After all, edit wars are useless tools for stupid people.

I strongly disagree with you on the NPOV issue. The reason I deleted it was because:

1. The issue is controversial, and if we say that "Many political analysts" are saying that Rossello used his power to promote his statehood stance, then we should include sources. Otherwise, it should not be included because the issue could be inflammatory.
2. If we just said that: (1) Hernandez Colon approved the Spanish-only law, (2) he was praised by some, including those of his party and the independence party, (3) the law earned international recognition, and (4) Rossello, being a statehooder, reversed the law; we could avoid NPOV issues while still stating the most important information.
3. Stating that the reason Rossello changed the law was to promote his political stance is a POV, and its completely acceptable, as long as its referenced. On the other hand, others could argue that the reason Hernandez Colon changed the law in the first place is to promote his political stance on autonomy, since he has been rumored (tag added by myself) that he is an "free autonomist" (i.e. is PDP but prefers independence or complete free association than ELA; similar to, though not as noticible as, Churumba's stance) However, this argument is not included, since it is possibly controversial and not referenced. To be NPOV, both points of view should either be included or not included.
4. The article could be nominated to FA status again, and these controversial and unreferenced issues will surely deny it FA status.

I hope this explains my actions. This issue should be resolved, maybe now, maybe in the future, maybe when it gets nominated for FA. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mtmelendez. I have a problem with the use of words such as some, many, certain.. without any reference. Cjrs 79 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard McClintock speak extensively in a radio intrerview on his proposal to tie some strings to federal educational funding. What he said is that the public school system should be required to demonstrate ongoing improvement in English- AND Spanish-language proficiency as a condition to continue receiving NCLB funds. He in no way proposed an English monolingual system, but a syustem where kids truly end up proficient in both languages. He mentioned something to the effect that they can read both Shakespeare and Cervantes, which most kids can't read today and that public school kids learn English as good as Rubén Berríos, Hernández Colón and himself.200.50.30.45 05:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Puerto Rican

There exists an unreferenced article Puerto Rican. It seems the content could be included here until such time that enough verifiable content could be collected to support an independent article. I propose a merge be conducted in 14 days from today. In the mean time, if knowledgeable editors could review the Puerto Rican article for accuracy, it would be appreciated. Alan.ca 11:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Puerto Rico article is already over 50K, and there are dozens of articles that link to Puerto Rican. Perhaps a better solution is to move some material from this page to Puerto Rican and reference that page here. -- TedFrank 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it should be merged. Rather, Puerto Rican-American should be merged into Puerto Rican since the term Puerto Rican-American has never been used. Please discuss this in the talk page of Puerto Rican-American.Charleenmerced ^Talk 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

WP:DAB

Per WP:DAB, I edited to use the otheruses4 tag. -- TedFrank 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Spammiong of game

People dont come to Puerto ricio to see about a German game but those trying to promote that game naturally would love to see it spammed inot the top of this page. We now have a disambiguation page so there aare no furthwer excuases for spamming in this unnotable game here, SqueakBox 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, see WP:DAB#Links_to_disambiguation_pages. "There is rarely a need for links directly to disambiguation pages—except from any primary topic. In most cases, links should point to the article that deals with the specific meaning intended." I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that to mean that one shouldn't link to the disambiguation page when there is only one other use. If your claim is that the other use is non-notable, then feel free to issue an AfD claiming a violation of WP:N, but it won't go very far, given that that claim is objectively incorrect. If you think a different template is appropriate, please make that argument with reference to the WP:DAB policy. -- TedFrank 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And now that the disambiguation page is a real disambiguation page, I've changed it back to the {otheruses} tag, which should end the disagreement. Thanks to User:Dhartung for his work. -- TedFrank 14:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge-mania

Ok, guys... I'm confused. It seems there's a quite a few Puerto-Rican articles currently under proposal to merge. However, the merge proposals don't make any sense:

• Proposal to merge: Puerto Ricans in the United States to Puerto Rican-American
• Proposal to merge: Puerto Rican-American to Puerto Rican
• Proposal to merge: Puerto Rican to Puerto Rico

There is no central discussion on these changes, which there should be, since the proposed changes in one merge or article significantly affect the merge of the other articles. So what's it going to be? Are we going to leave them "as is", or are we going to merge all or some of them? - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think only the second item (Puerto Rican-American to Puerto Rican should be merged. PR in the US should be its own article, as well as Puerto Rican. Charleenmerced ^Talk 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Puerto Rican and Puerto Rico should not be merged. Joelito (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree with you both. The Puerto Ricans in the United States looks really good to me, with lots of info and plenty of references, although it might need copy-editing. I also think Puerto Rican should be a separate article. I guess the real question is whether Puerto Rican-American should be merged to Puerto Rican, or merged to Puerto Ricans in the United States, or simply left as it is. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rican and Puerto Rico should not be merged I agree also, But I don't really see anything in Puerto Rican-American that merits its existence, it isn't even a term in use by either people in the island or in the United States.Mad05963 10:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How about merging Puerto Rican-American with both Puerto Rican and Puerto Ricans in the United States? - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! Merged Boricua and Puerto Rican-American with Puerto Rican. Sorry I took a while, had a lot of real-world stuff in between, but I managed to merge them. I basically brought the most most important and relevant data from both of them. Both Boricua and Puerto Rican-American had a lot of info that wasn't relative to the subject or was redundant. Non-relevant info is already included in other articles, such as History of Puerto Rico or the Puerto Rico article. If anyone has any objections, feel free to leave me a message and we'll reach consensus on specific issues, however I believe the merge was for the best, and a long time coming based on repetitive arguments from many users in all pages. Peace. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

looks good 68.18.32.52 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of off-topic. These pages should be linked to, not merged-with. Especially since most of those pages are incomplete where as this one is mostly well-polished.

Comments

This is great information about Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. It gives me great pride that I come from such a wonderful place. There was information that I did not know about Puerto Rico and by reading this it gave me a clear understanding of the history of Puerto Rico. There are many singers, actors, actresses etc. that come from Puerto Rico and I am proud that us Puerto Ricans are being recognized for our talents. Tengo mucho orgullo de mi Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican food is delicious, I can eat it everyday. Sometimes eating it too much is not healthy but I enjoy it. Since I am doing this for a class assignment I would like my fellow classmates to learn a little bit about my origin. I hope they like Puerto Rico as much as I do.{T.Acevedo, English 110}

Glad you liked it. You know, many editors put alot of time in making the article as it is. You can help! - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions on PR-US relationship

Do Puerto Ricans have any representation (vote) in the US govt.?

Vote, no. Voice, yes. We have a resident commissioner who has voice but no vote on

Congress.

• Further comment - Puerto Ricans living in the United States can vote in regular elections.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Were they subject to military draft?

Yes, we are subject to military draft.

Do you go thru customs or immigration control when travelling between PR and US?

Customs.

Do US citizens have an automatic right to live in PR or own property there as they would in the US? Fourtildas 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly as in the US. Joelito (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up of Politics section

Ok. I cleaned-up the Politics section without removing nor adding any information. This is a highly controversial topic and I don't want to start a fuss about it now. I simply re-arranged the body of the text to improve its organization. Now, the entire Politics section is more manageable, in that its easier to add information to the corresponding sub-section without changing the flow of information. If you feel some information belongs in a different sub-section where I originally put it, be bold and change it. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Politics Section

Hello. I think someone should include the latest events concerning Puerto Rico's political status. More information can be found here [16]. Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 11:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. That section is already bloated. It should be included in the Politics of Puerto Rico article. But if you want to add it, in either articles, then... Just Do it. Nike. ;-) - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 13:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I just meant it should be included somewhere. Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 18:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Include it if you want, but I recommend a short and brief description, while adding detailed info in the Politics of Puerto Rico article. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned-up the Politics section by removing redundant info which was an exact copy of that included in the Politics of Puerto Rico article. This article is THE core-topic of all Puerto Rico-related articles, so it doesn't have to include so many details which are fully discussed in other articles.

P.S. - The Politics of Puerto Rico article is a real mess... Heavy clean-up is required. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not let the politics section be a link to another page? This should be a reference page for PR, including too much politics information will most likely start a flamewar.

Jones Act

The Jones Act and US Citizenship for PR seem to be a major reason people come to this article, which is my argument for making it a brief subsection of the PR Under US rule section. Does anyone else agree with this or is it fine to leaving it in the article as is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.22.54.72 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

When the Going Gets Rough...

Why must we listen to such rubbish! This writer obviously has not traveled much. I have travel all over the world for the past 20 years back and forth to Europe and to think that Europe is only or mostly white is a dream of folks who do not live, nor have ever visted Europe. I just recently visted Southern Europe, Italy, Spain and Greece and most people that I ran into have brown eyes, Dark brown hair, and light to modestly brown skin. Funny, most look just like me, and I'm Puerto Rican. There's no shame to being what's called "latino negro". and this term implies a person has very distinct features, facial and others, that clearly show they are from african decend. The error is their insistant that Puerto Rican are mostly balck and are hiding this fact due to shame. get over it, most reliable DNA test show this is inaccurate, and at the most has been done very selectivly and skewed to prove a point. Visit the island, look at the traditional culture and then you canmake a accusrate assestment. Puerto rico orgins are a direct result of over 400 years of Spanish rule and occupation, and when balcks were brought onto the island to replenish the Taino workforce, they were forbidden to intermingle. The island has changed over the past 25 years, but that is due to the immigration of blacks from other countries.19;01, 31 May 2007

What's with IPs today, I archived it because the page was long as I did to San Juan, Puerto Rico before it's annoying having to scroll fifty threads to get to the bottom, you want it back copy it and paste it here, but delete it from the archive to avoid double archival. -凶 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

IP has a point that Spain was not (and is not) the "whitest" place in Europe (the Roman settlers were certainly darker than the Visigoth conquerors that came later), but exaggerates his point with the claim of "700 years of black rule". First, not all of Spain was under Moorish for 700 years, and the Moors could hardly be considered "black" in the sense of sub-Saharan Western African that is what people think of when they think about "Blacks" in America. Afc 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed that someone deleted my extensive writing on PR and the links to the so-called natives on that island. Covering up the truth with lies won't get anyone anywhere.

They aren't deleted just archived, it all can be found on that little link that says "Archive 1" just above, to revive it just go there and follow the steps I previously listed. -凶 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Archives happen. It's a normal process in Wikipedia: It's not deleting or censoring, it's just filing it for future reference. Anyway, if you wish to provide further comments, the page has just been emptied to make room for more discussion. Enjoy. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Languages section

I feel this line from the Languages section implies bias in favor of the Spanish language and is misleading towards the bilingual skills of Puerto Ricans: "As of 2006, an estimated 3,860,120 people use Spanish as their primary language; English is the primary language of 82,000, which is less than 2.2% of the population. The large majority of residents living in metropolitan areas are bilingual, or at least understand and speak English to a certain extent." The phrase "to a certain extent" bothers me the most as it implies that the majority of the population barely have a beginner's understanding of the English language (an entirely false statement). If the implication in the previous lines was true, how could anyone explain why movies come to the island subtitled instead of dubbed (and even offer subtitled versions of movies when moves do come dubbed) or why every cable tv station is in English? And what about the whole phrasing for primary and secondary languages; is it even possible to accurately measure this in a bilingual culture? Is the source for that line 100% verifiable and trustworthy?

Lastly, why is Spanglish not addressed at all? Isn't the fact that people use the word "parking" instead of "estacionar" (among many other things) worth mentioning in this so-called Languages section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.22.54.72 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

-Actually this whole languages section is politically charged. That should be flagged.

External links - Spam

I've cleaned up the external links section removing links to specific subjects related to Puerto Rico, such as the UPR, political parties, government agencies, etc. Some links related to the Puerto Rican independence movement were even included in bold while all others weren't, which I believe is a clear evidence of spamming links. I also added a notice in the page, but not before verifying that these links were already included in their corresponding articles.

Wikipedia policy clearly states that "Links normally to be avoided include... sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject," and that "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject." Additionally, "links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." I encourage all users to whiz through Wikipedia's policy on External Links and Spam before adding new ones to this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To the guy who changed the pronunciation

I went in there and changed the IPA pronunciation so that it reflects the way Puerto Ricans actually talk. Us Puerto Ricans don't speak "standard" spanish and don't appreciate a bunch of people sitting in Spain telling us how to pronounce the name of our own island.-User:192.156.58.34

I'm the guy. Well, there could be conflicting views on this. Puerto Ricans have different pronunciations of various words, given their mixed ethnic and cultural background. But if you're going to standardize the pronunciation, please provide sources. Otherwise, its just basic Original Research. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 11:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the person that made the changes is actually making fun of puerto rican pronunciation. I'm from Puerto Rico, and I know that we don't say puelto even if it sounds like that. Plus, what are we supposed to do know, go to every article and find out how people in that country pronounce it and change it? The purpose of the article is to give the standard, most accepted pronunciation. I'm with Mtmelendez, and I agree with his revert. Actually I would revert until the other person could give proof of his pronunciation. After all, aren't we supposed to be bold when ediditng?Cjrs 79 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting further, please be advised that personal comments and views have no place on talk pages or any other page in Wikipedia. Some may constitute personal attacks, which may lead to blocks, or even bans from Wikipedia. Please people, stay cool. We don't want to regret something later. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 12:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unclear important point

Can residents of Puerto Rico vote for US presidency and congress or not? Dan Gluck 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We are US citizens without a right to vote on the US presidency,congress, etc. We can only vote for the officials of the island every 4 years(next one in 2008) or for the plebiscite (for the status of the commonwealth:statehood,independence or keep commonwealth status). Minimum age to vote is 18 like in the US. DemoPR 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This brings an important point. If users continue to asks basic questions on Puerto Rico's political status, then there's a problem with the article. Such information is important, and should be clear to the reader, as Dan Gluck pointed out. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

When the Going Gets Rougher, and Slavery is attempted to be concealed...

From: Antrhop Keen Date: June 1st, 2007

Why does someone keep taking off the illustrative pictures about Puerto Rico, including the photo that alludes to slavery in that country's history?

Best regards,

Anthrop

As El C said and I quote "too many images in odd places, unconventional bolding of acronyms and so on" besides this most of the added images are in no way related to Puerto Rico most of the images are from other islands in the Caribbean and the slavery image is not from Puerto Rico. There is no need to have the insignia of the political parties if there is a link to the main article in there and the image in the lead is unnessesary and aganist Wikipedia's manual of style. Your acts of sockpuppetry are also aganist policy. --凶 21:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an article, not a scrapbook. Also, certain images you included in the article are not free, and their fair-use rationale does not extend to this article. Your contributions are appreciated, but are considered disruptive. Consider breezing through Wikipedia:Manual of Style. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC) First of all the residents of the island of Puerto Rico are natural born US citizens. Jus soli was implemented to Puerto Rico 1940, so each and every resident form the island is like I mentioned above a natural US citizen, because of the Nationality Act. It became effective January 13th in 1941. So in order every resident of the island born before 1917 is in fact under congress glove, but if born after 1917 your citizenship is protected under the sweet 14th Amendment. Let justice be done to our fellow americans.

The truth about Citizenship

First of all the residents of the island of Puerto Rico are natural born US citizens. Jus soli was implemented to Puerto Rico 1940, so each and every resident form the island is like I mentioned above a natural US citizen, because of the Nationality Act. It became effective January 13th in 1941. So in order every resident of the island born before 1917 is in fact under congress glove, but if born after 1917 your citizenship is protected under the sweet 14th Amendment.

U.N.'s latest developments regarding Puerto Rico

Should this Press Release by the U.N. be summarized and the source included in the article; the current article seems to be outdated on this matter, since it doesn't include the latest significant developments and change in lanaguage coming from the U.N.'s Decolonization Committee, don't you think?

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/gacol3160.doc.htm

Responsible Responsibility 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

shining star of the caribbean

I believe that this should be included in the article around http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Puerto_Rico#Culture http://www.puertoricousa.com/english/history.htm any opinions? BoriquaStar 00:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What about it should be included? The website is highly POV from the pro-statehood pro-citizenship side. All the facts (real facts) that are presented in the website are already in the Puerto Rico article. Cjrs 79 00:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm neither pro-statehood, pro-commonwealth, or pro-independence. I'm saying that we sould place in culture, that Puerto Rico is sometimes referred to as "shining star of the caribbean" that i all. BoriquaStar 00:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to infere you were pro anything, just the article...sorry. Well, the article doesn't say that Puerto Rico is refer to as the shinning star of the caribbean, just that it should be. Other than that article and references to it I can't find any other references. In my opinion I dont think it should be included... but hey this is not my article, right... so let's hear what others have to say.

i hear you. well i guess you're more familiar with this article than me. What has been going on.. in gist? Anyway, the shining star of the carribean is something you'll see on a lot of travel sites when referring to puerto rico.

BoriquaStar 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that up to date to what's going on. I try not to make controversial edits... anyway that said... I don't think that travel commercial websites can be references. But I am not an expert on wikipedia rules regarding references (some of the rules I don't even agree with). So, if anyone care to comment about the use of commercial websites as references.. we are waiting. Cjrs 79 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the motto of the shining star was created for an advertising campaign from Puerto Rico's Tourism Company. I believe it was used in the 90's, maybe late eighties, not really sure about how long it ran, but it was created mainly for the US market. What's definitive is that it is not something Puerto Rico is known as for. And I don't believe it should be in any encyclopedia, unless it is on an article about marketing, advertising, branding or tourism. Solcita 19:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? I can't remember it, the only campain I remeber in the 90's was the Puerto Rico lo hace mejor campain.-凶 21:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that has been the problem with branding the Island as a product for tourism and industry. In the last 20 years we have done it better, we have been the shining star of the Caribbean and we've invited people to discover the continent of Puerto Rico. Those are the ones I remember... maybe there have been more with every change of government, and every new director of tourism.Solcita 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ponce Flag on this article as well? BoriquaStar 02:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? -凶 02:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The capital of PR has it's own flag and is known nationwide. BoriquaStar 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Every municipality on the island has its own flag and seal, I think you might be a little confused Ponce isn't the capital of Puerto Rico, San Juan is although Ponce is a huge municipality that rivals the size and economy of San Juan. -凶 07:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Well the flag based from here [17] seems to be interesting and has history to it. Thanks for the replies. BoriquaStar 07:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps to illustrate a line that explains that Ponce and other municipalities are described as "Autonomous Municipalities", the flag doesn't have such a long history it was just created following the municipality's creation, now if a municipal flag has an interesting history is the one from Lares, Puerto Rico. If you are interested in Ponce maybe you might be interested in helping us improve the article, I am planing to do so when San Juan is done and I know a few users that might be interested. Now about flags perhaps we should wait feedback from Joelito and Tony the Marine they have been around for longer than I and they are more familiar with this article. --凶 08:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If the flag was created when the city was created, then the flag would have over 200 years of history, definetly not a short history. (ponce was founde in 1877 i believe) Cjrs 79 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe you got me on that one, what I meant was that it doesn't have an extensive history full of details. -凶 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally I got you on something.. lol.. ;-) Cjrs 79 04:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

HMM.. I just looked at the archive. It is really really.. umm.. controversial. I was wondering why there were no edits until I came around. I guess it had calmed down. Anyway, the Lares Flag is pretty interesting. It looks strikingly similiar to the DR flag. Is the DR flag based from the Lares flag? thanks BoriquaStar 08:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the flag of Lares was based on the Dominican flag, it was originally designed by a group of revolucionaries to be the flag of the "Republic of Puerto Rico" although they didn't suceed, the flag was subsecuently adopted by Lares following a violent revolt, for more detail read Grito de Lares. -凶 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Dragon Flame I have 2 icons of puerto rican heritage. There is one i made. Feel free to use it!

This user is Puerto Rican.

This user is a Wikipedian in Puerto Rico.

This user is proud to be Puerto Rican

BoriquaStar 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

United Nations resolution on Puerto Rico, June 14 2007

'Special Committee on decolonization calls on US to expedite Puerto Rico's self determination process,text also requests General Assembly to consider question; Urges Clean Up of Vieques Island, Release of Puerto Rican Political Prisoners.' UN official weblink: [[18]]. This is an event that needs to be included in the main article. Puerto Rico's press calls the resolution a historic one since it is requesting action from the General Assembly (the last time this happened was in 1953)--vertical 01:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ultimate status of Puerto Rico

Out of curiosity, after looking up the political situation of Puerto Rico, it looks like it will become the 51st state, albeit one with a Hispanic culture. Is this true?--Lionheart Omega 22:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it probably will but it will be very controversial and probably take a pretty long time.

Puertoricans would need to vote for statehood or independence,if statehood wins there would still be problems with the US Government,etc.--BoricuaPR 01:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The situation would probably be it being a state, but it might look like the Republics of Russia in terms of how government and language are handled. On a side note, that should be done for all territories of the U.S. with a population of over 60,000, along with Hawaii.-Lionheart Omega 03:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If statehood wins, it probably will be a unussual kind of it there are several communities that will defend some sort of independent representation, most notably in sports there will be arguments of Puerto Rico's ability to make successful teams by themselves and they will probably point at the accomplishments of the basketball, baseball and volleyball teams to prove their points. -凶 01:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

^That would be stupid,sports over quality of life?--BoricuaPR 02:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No you misunderstood me, I meant that these communities would pressure the existence of independent representation even if the country became a state. And in my opinion they would probably get the support of the Olympic community on this aspect. -凶 02:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal Matters

The place is known for having a portion of the Bermuda Triangle nearby and is where the "La Chupacabra" first appeared. Google Chupacabra, Puerto Rico for more. 205.240.144.168 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah about that, no matter how much History Channel's UFO Files series makes the viewer believe Puerto Rico is a "Hot Spot" that is quite far from truth, the last report of el Chupacabras that I saw televised on a news program in here was back in 2002. Paranormal matters here just don't seem to be considered significant, probably since most of them are discovered to be hoaxes shortly after or because sports and politics take priority. -凶 01:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image caption, Kapok tree to Ceiba

{{editprotected}}

Ceiba is more correct, as Kapok is an specific species, which is not stated by sources as being the same species as being the official tree of Puerto Rico. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The official tree of Puerto Rico is the Kapok or Ceiba pentandra. Ceiba, although the common name for the species in Puerto Rico, is actually the name of the genus of this tree and it is, therefore, more ambiguous than Kapok. Joelito (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be agreement on the change - once there is agreement, then add an editprotected tag and someone will look here again. 13:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Where can we get the source for this? Thanks!--Cerejota 06:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico citizenship

I think a new page for this is needed(i am trying to find some translations in english of the official documents). There is a lot of information that needs to be translated or summarized under this new historic event, including the case Ramirez vs Mari Brás. The PR goverment ruling of October 13,2006 establishing the Puerto Rico citizenship under the constitution of Puerto Rico and the official requirements stated on May 1, 2007 :that every person born in the country (Puerto Rico) or whose mother or father is puerto rican born can claim the official document of citizenship of Puerto Rico. Reference: [[19]]. --vertical 22:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

- Technically, Puerto Rican citizenship is illegal for people born after 1898. The Puerto Rico as an "internal" government can't just issue citizenship to it residents. The U.S. consitution states that matters of citizenship and international relations are to be held by the Federal Government and not by state governments or any government under the Federal. i.e. There's no Florida citizenship, or New York citizenship, or Guam citizenship. Until the United States recognizes a "Puerto Rican" citizenship if there's any, there shouldn't be any posts related to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.130.130 (talk) 19:42, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

That's the point; there is Puerto Rican citizenship, whether the Americans recognize it or not. It is an important part of our history and should be added. --Boricuaeddie 21:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(jumping in with a comment) 74.244.130.130 anonymously says, in part: "The U.S. consitution states that matters of citizenship and international relations are to be held by the Federal Government and not by state governments or any government under the Federal." I don't find that anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. I do find the following (emphasis added):

• "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." (Article IV, Section 2)
• "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Amendment 11
• "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (Amendment 14, titled "Citizenship Rights.")

This appears to be a simple instance of uninformed opinion being stated as if it were fact, and a supporting source (the U.S. Constitution) being cited without checking that the cited source actually does say what it is claimed to say. Wikipedia has far too much of this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you that Puerto Rico is not a US federated state, US federal district like D.C. or a Non governing territory like Guam,US Virgin Islands or American Samoa.see:[20]. Puerto Rico has an unique status as a Self governing Nonincorporated territory with Commonwealth or Associated Free State status under a compact of association between both countries since 1952 and approved by the United Nations in 1953. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico resolved that the Puerto Rican citizenship does exists and that the imposed statutory US citizenship is a secondary citizenship since the natural citizenship of Puerto Ricans is the Puerto Rican citizenship under the Treaty of Paris and beyond (the imposition of a second citizenship did not change this fact neither the Constitution of 1952). see:[21]The governing party accepted this fact and since May 2007, the certification of citizenship is available as an official document of the PR government. (Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico).--Royptorico 01:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hurricanes

I think we should add more information about the hurricanes that have passed by Puerto Rico, and include images like Image:Hurricane Dean 145 81807 3-15 UTC.jpg, Image:Hurricane Georges 20 sept 1998 1445Z.jpg, or Image:Hugo 1989 track.png and Image:Hurricane Hugo 1989 sept 21 1844Z.jpg (info here). --Boricuaeddie 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

colony

There should be a section which documents that there are Puerto Ricans that do indeed still consider Puerto Rico a colony of the United States but under a different name. 67.53.78.15 00:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Martin Koppel in the introduction to "Puerto Rico independence is a necessity" ISBN 0-87348-895-4 copyright 1998 "In 1954, Rafael Cancel Miranda, together with Andres Figueroa Cordero, Irving Flores, and Lolita Lebron, carried out an armed protest in the US Congress in Washington, D.C., in oder to draw international attention to Puerto Rico's colonial status." Even though this was 1954, it shows there were Puerto Ricans who resisted, in this case violently, what they still considered colonial domination67.53.78.15 01:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll look for more sources and add it. Thanks. --Boricuæddie 00:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

sports

many sports that puerto rico play are well known as

baseball

basketball

biking, skating

boating and sailing

bowling

caming

cock fighting

cycling racing

diving

fishimg

golfing

racing

horse racing

surfing

swimming

tennis

wind surfing

and last but not least

volleyball —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.41.27.182 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Got references? --Agüeybaná 14:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I don't know yet how to indent. Please someone do this for me. Please note that football is a sport that is developing enthusiasm. There is a team, Puerto Rico Islanders. I'll find more information and references.--MissCurie 09:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

what you mean is Fútbol,which is not the same as Football. It is Soccer in English.--Royptorico 00:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. See football. --Agüeybaná 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, its still called "football" everywhere in the world excluding the United States because they have their own version of "football", there is a reason for the title of the article Football (soccer). - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth supporters

Isn't this unjustified POV?

"Those who support maintaining the status quo (i.e., Commonwealth status) insist that upon attaining this status, Puerto Rico entered into a voluntary association with the U.S. "in the nature of a compact", but according to a President's Task Force report..."

Is it not true that the absolute majority of Commonwealth supporters are in favor of "enhanced"/sovereign commonwealth as opposed to the current status quo?

Regards,

Hypathia 01:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that "those who support" are not identified and that no supporting source is cited for their asserted insistence. I've tagged that sentence in the article accordingly.

FWIW, I note the following on page 13 of http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32933.pdf:

“ 1991 Referendum. In September 1991, the Puerto Rican legislature approved legislation that required a referendum be held on December 8, 1991. The voters in the referendum were asked to vote on self-determination or rights that would be incorporated into the commonwealth constitution, if the majority of voters approved.

The specific proposals included in the referendum included rights to determine the status of Puerto Rico without being subject to the plenary powers of Congress, guarantees of the continuance of Puerto Rico’s culture (including official use of the Spanish language and retention of a separate Olympic team), and a guarantee of U.S. citizenship based on constitutional, not statutory, authority. Both the PDP and the PIP urged a “yes” vote.

A majority of voters (53%) cast ballots against the proposal. Some contended that the vote was an indirect step to block statehood. Others perceived the rejection to reflect dissatisfaction with the Governor. Another explanation offered for the vote is that some cast their ballots out of fear that a “yes” vote would result in a further degradation of federal benefits and the loss of U.S. citizenship.

”

-- Boracay Bill 03:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans are not fond of changing the constitution, right after this referendum the PDP lost the elections, the PNP won and tried to do another referendum in 1994 to change again the constitution and was defeated, this time by the PIP and PDP coalition, the 'no' won by 54%.--Royptorico 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is Unsourced, unsubstantiated POV:

"Those who support[attribution needed] maintaining the status quo (i.e., Commonwealth status) insist[citation needed] that upon attaining this status, Puerto Rico entered into a voluntary association with the U.S. "in the nature of a compact".

Why is it not deleted as is common when POV is added by some to this entry? Anyway, even if it was "sourced", does it not discount the fact that the "none of the above" option (arguably in favor of "sovereign commonwealth", which was not on the plebiscite's ball of 1998) won more than 50% of the vote? Commonwealth obtained approximately 0.1% (less than one thousand votes), so how can it be said that Commonwealth "has won" all plebiscites held on the island. This is outrageously inaccurate POV.

Hypathia 03:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jones Act

The statment that "the application of these coastwise shipping laws and their imposition on Puerto Rico consist in a serious restriction of free trade and have been under scrutiny and controversy due to the apparent contradictory rhetoric involving the United States Government's sponsorship of free trade policies around the world, while its own national shipping policy (Cabotage Law) is essentially mercantilist and based on notions foreign to free-trade principles" should be consider to non-neutral point of point. This statment is not fact but an opinion of the writer. The discussion of the beneitfs of free trade vs. protectionist policy adds no value to the reader knowledge of Puerto Rico and is only serves as a soapbox for an opinion.

Illegal immigration to Puerto Rico?

I came across the Dominican illegal immigration to Puerto Rico page and after reading it raised a question. Are there other nationalities that are coming into Puerto Rico illegally in large numbers, or is it primarily just Dominicans? Perhaps this should be incorporated into this article.--Wambeter 09:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WEF Country Profile for Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico enters at #36 ( out of 131 countries that are included) at the World Economic Forum (WEF) yearly report. It is the first time Puerto Rico has a country profile and it is included in the yearly Index report. The WEF website says "The Global Competitiveness Report series has evolved over the last three decades into the world’s most comprehensive and respected assessment of countries’ competitiveness, offering invaluable insights into the policies, institutions, and factors driving productivity and, thus, enabling sustained economic growth and long-term prosperity." Related links and reference: 1) WEF Global Competitiveness Index Report 2007 2) WEF Website WEF --Royptorico 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Political status within the United States

I think that this section has too apologetic a tone, especially the second paragraph. It sounds as if it is trying too hard to refute those who claim that Puerto Ricans do not pay enough taxes toward the US government for the benifits they enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.222.28 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to site of color photos of Puerto Rico in the 1940s and 1950s

I've been digitizing color slides taken in Puerto Rico in the 1940s and 50s for two years now and have over 1,500 photos online at www.flickr.com/photos/tlehman/. These cover most aspects of life in Puerto Rico at the time: agriculture, scenery, towns, transporation, housing, etc.

I believe this would be a useful link to add in the Photos section of Further reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlehman (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is "further reading" (emphasis added). How is Flickr something to read? Great work, by the way. --Agüeybaná 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for these photos? Are they yours? If not, where were they taken from? Joelito (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The Photos link is under External Links, not Further Reading.

The photos were taken by individuals who served in Puerto Rico in the 1940s and 50s in projects in Castaner, La Plata, Pulguillas, etc. Some of them have allowed me to scan their slides. I've been giving digital copies to archives, including the Luis Munoz Marin Foundation in San Juan, and putting general interest ones on Flickr for use by the public. Tlehman 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

radio stations

Puerto Rico has one of the most competitive radio markets yet there were barely any wikipedia articles on radio stations in the market. Nearly all the stations have stub pages now but include mostly technical details. Any help on improving these articles, particularly with historical information would be appreciated. See Category:Radio stations in Puerto Rico category for a list. --Rtphokie 12:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever grapples with this issue should note that Puerto Rico enjoys no satellite radio coverage---neither XM nor Sirius beam their signal to PR. This fact makes it less attractive for these systems to include Hispanic broadcasts since they don't reach 9% of the US's Hispanic market---the 3.9 million living in PR. I believe that the PR Senate announced a bill regarding XM and Sirius' consent to merge petition before the FCC.Pr4ever 14:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sports- PR national team (volleyball) defeats US national team

Front page news in all the newspapers in PR. A landmark date for the PR national volleyball team. It defeated the US team for the first time in 30 years in the World Cup being held in Japan. The newspaper El Nuevo Dia called this game "Historico triunfo sobre EEUU" (Historic triumph against US team). reference: [22] and El Nuevo Dia (in spanish) [23] . Something to be add in the sports article of PR --Royptorico (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that this is a general article on Puerto Rico and should cover broad topics not specific recent details. See summary style for more information. Joelito (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Political squabbling"

I have undone the massive reverts done by Joelr31 because of alleged "political squabbling" and because it is a "summary article".

1-the "government type" is not a "self-governing Commonwealth". First, PR is not fully self-governing and "commonwealth" does not describe with any specificity what PR is. It is only the name given to the body politic. "Commonweath" is the name of four states, that are entirely different from the Queen of England's realm, also called a "Commonwealth". The phrase "Republican three-branch" is a very specific one-meaning-permitted description of the type of government in Puerto Rico.

2-population ranks-Puerto Rico is under United States sovereignty. Thus, it somewhat political to rank it in comparison to nations that are sovereign. However, fully respecting that view, I added the rankings in comparison to the other jurisdiction within the United States, not replaciong the world rankings. To eliminate one or the other could be considered "political squabbling". To respectfully retain both is not political squabbling.

3-I have previously explained and discussed why PR is "partially self-governing"

4-the phrase self-governing is a hyphenated, not unhyphenated phrase.

5-Grito de Lares-My edits add several important facts. First, what is "Lares". Second, if you're going to revert the phrase "two-day-long" because this is a summary, why not edit out, for the same reason, "small but significant", and the 26-word references to Betances and Ruiz Belvis. It should all remain, in spite of being a summary article.

6-Referring to Spain as "who" sounds less correct than "which". Is there any grammatical basis to revert my edits, because it certainly has nothing to do with the two excuses (summarization and political squabbling) used to justify the wholesale revert of my edits.

7-It is totally incorrect that the July 25, 1898 invasion happened "at the outbreak of" the war. As a matter of fact, it was virtually at the end of active hostilities. I could have written "nearly at the end of" but simply inserted the very neutral NPOV word "during". What's the justification to revert that?

8-Adding 9 words to expand on "Natural disasters", without specifically mentioning the West Coast earthquake and tsunami and the names or dates of San Ciprian, San Ciriaco hurricanes, etc, doesn't really change the "summary" nature of the articles.

9-Piñero and Muñoz' titles-The titles describing the prior positions held by the first Puerto Rican governors before being appointed/elected to that job are relevant facts that only add 4 words to the summary.

10-If you choose to mention "La Isleta de San Juan" the mistake that it is "known as Old San Juan" has to be corrected, either by eliminating the mistake or correcting it, as I did, to explain that it "includes Old San Juan and Puerta de Tierra. As a matter of fact, most of the population and the geographic territory of the Isleta is in Puerta de Tierra and not the minuscule barrio known as Old San Juan.

11-El Yunque-what's the problem with mentioning that it's one of thew highest peaks, instead of simply "located". It only adds 11 characters!!!

12-Providing San Juan and Puerto Rico's lowest temps ever draws more attention than simply the 82 degree avg temp.

13-The edit closest to the allegation of "Political squabbling" would be my edit explaining that statehood supporters saw the "Spanish Only law" as "another attempt to move the islands away from eventual statehood". However, I was very careful to simply paraphrase existing text describing how many people saw Rosselló's Spanish/English law as "another attempt to move the island (sic) closer to statehood". If my edit is reverted, so should the identical existing text be reverted.

14-San Juan/St. Augustine. It is a major fact that should not be reverted from any summary that San Juan is the oldest city under the American flag.

15-Ratify/approve-What's the problem with this edit?

16-To state that there is a compact between PR and the US is a matter for politicalk debate. To state that there was an approval "in the manner of a compact" is uncontradicted fact.

17-If mentioning and listing consulates is important, a mention of the unusual relations between PR and the Vatican is important, too.

18-The reversion of my correction regarding national delegates leaves in place the entirely false existing text that PR is "not accorded equal-proportional representation" in both national parties.

19-Existing text that PR is an "independent taxation authority by mutual agreement with the U.S. Congress" is totally false. Congress frequently modifies tax laws applicable to PR without seeking a "mutual agreement" with PR. Examples include elimination of Sec. 936, creation of temporary Sec. 30A, amendment of Sec. 199, etc. My edits eliminated that falsity and provided neutral, factual correcions.

20-The summary should never exclude the fact that PR now has four registered politicalk parties, not three and that the fourth is non-political status-based.

My edits may not be perfect but if any one of them are to be reverted, it should be done in an individual, not wholesale, basis, as would be done with a vandal, and each revert should be explained, at least briefly, in order to demonstrate respect for the time and effort invested in preparing the edits.Pr4ever (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Some edits are fine but others are just subtle political positions. There was so much wrong with the edits (not just yours) that it was easier to do a large revert than to correct/ammend what was incorrect by Wikipedia standards. Your edits have been reverted constantly (not just by me) so there is something non-POV about them. Joelito (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You re-inserted the subtle political POV (without references again) and the unnecessary details again but since I do not have neither the time nor the desire to make you see the error of your ways I will leave the debate to other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelr31 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

One at a time

Guys, you seem smart. This constant reverting is unseemly. Just take each issue one at a time. Check the sources. One by one. Give it a try; you might be surprised by how well it works. But please, no more of this wholesale reverting. SamEV (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

Guys, please note that I gave reliable sources. I encourage you to verify those sources so that you can have full confidence and know there's no POV-pushing on my part. I let the sources speak for themselves and hope you guys do too. Joel, all the sources given agree that Puerto Rico is not sovereign and independent. Also, you cannot use Wikipedia itself as a source. The List of countries is no help for another reason: it's not limited to "countries", stating clearly that it also includes "dependent territories": "This list of countries, arranged alphabetically, gives an overview of countries of the world. It includes territories that are independent states (both those that are internationally recognized and generally unrecognized), inhabited dependent territories, and areas of special sovereignty." Please see also Puerto Rico is Not a Country, which I considered putting in External Links. SamEV (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I really hate political debates and seldom participate in them. I just reverted the incorrect clasification of "island" (PR is in fact an archipelago) to the previous edit. I do not wish to discuss the validity of Puerto Rico as a country since the term is easily confused with state (sovereign) or nation. Joelito (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand. And it is an archipelago, so I kept that edit too. SamEV (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is a country by all standards. It is not sovereign, but it is country.--Royptorico (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

no it isn't, in international law one of the constituting elements of being a country is sovereignity, which PR lacks. -- fdewaele, 11 December 2007, 19:46

The United Nations, Puerto Ricans and the international comunity disagree with you. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Here are just a few.--Royptorico (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of debating each of our own views and interpretations, perhaps we can include them all with reliable sources, including arguments that Puerto Rico is/is not a country. We can't just simply interpret laws to reach a conclusion to include in the article, Puerto Rico's status is debated in various forums with valid arguments on both sides. Our policies and guidelines suggest we include all sides of the issue, and not our interpretations. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says that Puerto Rico is not a country? This is not debatable. It is a proven fact. Please do not get confused with the terms sovereignty or nation-state (which Puerto Rico is not, also not debatable). Under the Wikipedia consensus PR is a country. This goes back to 2002. This is an attempt to rewrite the whole article and to jump over the established Wiki consensus for self governing entities like Puerto Rico and the Republic of China (Taiwan) -- --Royptorico (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)19:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing the most common usage of "country" as "a sovereign, independent state". It is true that another use of the term exists that does apply to Puerto Rico. I alluded to it, by pointing out that the List of countries includes more than just independent, sovereign states. SamEV (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the List provided is limited to "countries",

From the same UN link [30]

"countries or areas, geographical and economic groupings" [code 166], if you click on it you'll see "Countries or areas for which statistical data are supplied to the Statistics Division of the United Nations Secretariat."[31] On their list [32], you'll see "Countries and Areas"

From the same weforum.org [33] you'll see "Country/Economy", similar to the term "economic grouping" from UN link.

From the same CIA link [34] you'll see "select a country or location"

From the same BBC link,[35], you'll see "find a territory"

The CBS information is based on CIA link.

So, Is there an argument similar to Puerto Rico is Not a Country, but supporting the Non Neutral point of view that PR is a country? Yaguez (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Country is just too easily understood as "independent, sovereign state" by the non-expert reader. The article might be better off not using it, especially in the lead. If used elsewhere in the article, it should be fully explained as to its range. SamEV (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Imprecise words should only be used when there are no alternatives. Most people consider "country" a synonim of a politically independent nation, which Puerto Rico clearly is not. The use of such a word would convey a less than neutral point of view ands lead many to an erroneous conclusion. As I've written before, this is not the place to reflect how one would like things to be, but to reflect them as they are. Three percent may want Puerto Rico to be an independent nation or country. Forty-eight percent may want Puerto Rico to be a federated state. However, PR is neither, and that is what Wikipedia must reflect.Pr4ever (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is not misleading anyone by stating that Puerto Rico is a country (non-sovereign)with an association with the US. Encyclopedia Brittanica reflects this obvious fact [36]. If you want to put 'non-sovereign' in brackets that would add more detail. I think it clarifies the article since Puerto Rico has a national identity separate from the US,including World Olympics and the Puerto Rican national team --vertical (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That last comment is the closest thing to a "happy-medium" that I have seen on all this debate, so how does (non-sovereing) country sound to all those involved in this silly content dispute? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Semblances of Sovereignty (book)

Semblances of Sovereignty is a book by T. Alexander Aleinikoff that deals with the U.S. Constitution, the conditional state of the US State's and the US Citizenship since the end of the 19th century. Alexander argues that citizenship should be "decentered" and understood as a commitment to an intergenerational national project, not a basis for denying rights to immigrants.

Author Information

T. Alexander Aleinikoff is the Dean of the Georgetown University Law Center and the Executive Vice President of Georgetown University. He has written on immigration refugee, citizenship law and policy, constitutional law, statutory interpretation and race discrimination. His most recent books include, Migration and International Law (2003); Semblances of Sovereignty: The Constitution, the State and American Citizenship (2002); Citizenship Policies for an Age of Migration (2002); and Modern Constitutional Theory (1999). He is a graduate of Swarthmore College and Yale Law School.

Summary

Semblances of Sovereignty supports the idea of abandonment from plenary power cases and advocates a new flexible conception for sovereignty and citizenship. According to T. Alexander Aleinikoff, the federal government ought to negotiate compacts with Indian tribes and the territories that affirm more durable forms of self-government. The book also accounts a beautiful narrative about a certain World Fair.

Substance

• Sovereignty Cases and the Pursuit of an American Nation-State
• Citizen-State from the Warren Court to the Rehnquist Court
• Commonwealth and the Constitution

(The Case of Puerto Rico)

• The Erosion of American Indian Sovereignty
• Indian Tribal Sovereignty beyond Plenary Power
• Plenary Power, Immigration Regulation and Decentered Citizenship
• Reconceptualizing Sovereignty

(Towards a New American Narrative)

[[Category:2002 books]]

(Lew Basnight IV (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Comments

I just browsed the first part of the intro to this book here. Interesting. What do you think is its relevance to this article? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Head of State

I just undid the edit that eliminated the reference to the President of the United States as Puerto Rico's Head of State. The edit was based on the fact that PR does not elect the President. Many countries/nations/países/sovereign entities/territories/colonies (I'm being as inclusive as possible) don't elect their heads of state. Take a look at Canada and you'll see that their monarch/head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, is also not elected. One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is consistency. Whoever wants to edit out the President as PR's head of state should edit FIRST every article on the dozens of former British colonies and eliminate reference to their enelected Head of State before medling with PR again. A Wikipedia article should not be a reflection of how we want the world to be, but how the world is in fact. Let's keep our politics out of this article and, if in doubt, let's be inclusive and respectful of all POV's.Pr4ever (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, if the other articles are wrong, there's no reason to insist that someone fix them "FIRST" before fixing this one. That's really not how Wikipedia works. Decisions about this article are based on what's best for this article, not on how other articles work.

What you said about Wikipedia reflecting the world as it is, and not as we'd like it to be, is entirely correct. I'd like to see some comments from those who support eliminating the reference to the President of the US as Puerto Rico's head of state. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox wars

We need to resolve these infobox disputes so that the article can be unlocked and normal editing can resume...

Head of state issue

• Some editors have claimed that no constitution or law explicitly makes the President of the United States the "head of state" of Puerto Rico. I assume this is true, though I invite citations if it is not. I briefly looked through the Constitution of the United States, and I found nothing in there which makes the President the head of state of the United States, either. Due to the politically charged nature of Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States, I think it would be a good idea to include a note that this designation is de facto.

• How do we evaluate the claim that the President of the United States is the de facto head of state of Puerto Rico? The head of state article gives some criteria, including responsibility for foreign affairs and the military, which are mostly handled by the U.S. executive. However, our article on governors hint that the governors of U.S. states perform the ceremonial "head of state" functions for the state but not the country, and Puerto Rico has separate representation in certain international organizations which U.S. states do not (according to the CIA World Factbook). Because this issue is a matter of interpretation and is politically charged, I think we cannot make this decision ourselves, but must defer to published sources.

• The claim that the President of the United States is the head of state of Puerto Rico is currently unreferenced; the best reference for this I could find is the CIA Factbook entry. This could be considered a primary source, since the CIA is part of the government of the United States, and so should know through personal contact who the head of state is.

• Some editors seem to consider the CIA a biased source, which would be reasonable if there were a controversy between the governments of the United States and Puerto Rico over who the head of state is. Some of the sources cited seem to establish the Governor as "head of government" but leave open the question of who the "head of state" is. No one seems to dispute that the United States President has significant duties with regard to the foreign and military affairs of Puerto Rico, so the CIA claim seems plausible. Are there any notable published opinion-makers or reputable authorities on the subject who deny the claim that the President of the United States is the "head of state" of Puerto Rico?

• The issues of sovereignty and federation are related; see the next section.

I would propose that unless anyone can cite contradictory sources:

• "(de facto)" should be added to the "head of state" line
• A reference to the CIA Factbook entry should be added.
• The footnote should clarify: "The President of the United States has primary executive responsibility for the foreign and military affairs of Puerto Rico, but Puerto Rico has separate representation in some international bodies. The Governor of Puerto Rico also serves executive, symbolic, and military functions similar to the governors of U.S. states."

-- Beland (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. I completely back this proposal. -Oreo Priest 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot before and agreement was reached(see archives). While the CIA factbook has Queen Elizabeth as Chief of State of Australia and Canada, in Wikipedia Queen Elizabeth does not have the Chief of State title in both articles (Australia,Canada), it has the title of Monarch. Under the compact of association between PR and the US (E.L.A. 1952), the US congress retained (by voluntary consent)sovereignty over matters of defense under the current political status. The Puerto Rico government official website has the Governor as the head and central figure of the government hierarchy of Puerto Rico(see link and PDF chart) [37] --vertical (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sovereignty

Our article on sovereignty indicates that the issue of whether individual states in a federation are sovereign is a matter of interpretation. There are plenty of references to the sovereign powers of individual U.S. states in law and dictionaries and whatnot, and our List of sovereign states has special notes about federations and dependent territories.

There is a reference [38] for just saying "United States" for Puerto Rico sovereignty, but clearly this does not give the whole picture. Even that reference describes the entities listed as areas of "dependencies and areas of special sovereignty", which is a bit different than fully-integral areas. Our article Commonwealth (United States insular area) describes the special relationships that Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands have with the U.S. federal system.

I would propose using the following for the Sovereignty line:

United States Commonwealth

...which is what the introduction of the article currently uses.

For referencing purposes, we could add the State Department reference, we could reference the Constitution and U.S. laws that establish the relationship, or we could defer references to the article Commonwealth (United States insular area), which can explain in-depth. I'm leaning toward adding the State Department reference with a note attached to see the Wikipedia article, but I could be swayed if other editors have opinions.

-- Beland (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. I also back this one. -Oreo Priest 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether the individual US states, were or not sovereign was a matter of debate under a Confederacy. Now US states are subject to federal Law, and when state laws conflict with federal laws, the federal laws are superior (exercising sovereignty). Puerto Rico is not a US state, it is not integrated, but still, it is subject to federal Law, just like a US state [[39]]. Anyway, it is a good idea to include the Commonwealth (United States insular area) concept in the sovereignty line. But i think we should answer the question, "Which state has sovereignty?" [40].

Perhaps with a line like this one

United States with a Commonwealth arrangement.

Dongolo (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kongo

I made a minor disambiguation link fix, changing Kongo to link instead to Kongo people. I see that the page is protected, but it doesn't seem to be about the Kongo issue so I went ahead with the change. Another possible target instead of "Kongo people" is Kingdom of Kongo. There are also other options at the disambiguation page Congo. If anyone would like something different, please feel free to speak up. --Elonka 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with use of Kongo people because it includes a section on religion. So, we should leave this new change. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 06:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Error

There is a great error. Columbus has arrived in Puerto Rico in November 1493, and not George Clooney! Stephan Sem (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That must have been a piece of vandalism or a "funny" test edit. It seems to have been fixed now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Locked

I don't know why this article is protected from editing, but it should be labeled as such. — Reinyday, 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. I hadn't noticed either. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Porto Rico"

At the turn of the century (possibly before) the name was frequently spelled as Porto Rico. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article?Saxophobia (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That was at the turn of the previous century. -24.149.203.34 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. e.g., Article II of the Treaty of Paris (1898):

“ Article II.

Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.

”

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting addition of "non-voting" to lead section sentence as implicit POV

I'm not following this article closely, but I noticed that this edit earlier today added the words "non-voting" to the lead section sentence: "The Jones-Shafroth Act or Jones Act, a 1917 statute sponsored by Representative William Atkinson Jones on the United States Congress conferred non-voting U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans." I have deleted the words "non-voting", which I feel inject political POV into this lead section sentence.

The sentence requoted above is true enough, with or without the words "non-voting". However, it is a fact that neither Mr. Jones, nor Mr. Shaforth, nor Mr. Foraker (whose earlier Foraker Act — First Organic Act of Puerto Rico — was, I understand, amended by the Jones-Shafroth Act), nor the entire Legislative and Executive branches of the U.S. government acting together, in concert, in unison, united behind the purpose, had then or currently do have the authority to grant voting rights to Puerto Ricans ("Puerto-Rican", here, meaning a U.S. citizen neither a "person of" any particular U.S. State nor of the DofC, nor a member of the U.S. Uniformed Services, nor otherwise in a special-case situation vis-a-vis voting rights).

No, the Jones-Shaforth act did not grant voting rights to Puerto Ricans. Also, neither Mr. Jones nor Mr. Shaforth stopped beating their wives. Both the question of adding the words "non-voting", and the question of wife-beating on the part of Jones and Shafforth, involve a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of many questions. Please also see Voting rights in the United States#Overseas and nonresident Citizens for a bit more info on the subject of U.S. voting rights for nonresident citizens and see "nonresident citizens?" in this talk page for a bit of discussion about that from an angle which applies to the case of Puerto-Ricans but doesn't come at the topic from a Puerto-Rican-specific angle. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Puerto Ricans were granted "voting" citizenship. When a Puerto Rican U.S. citizen moves to a state, precisely because he or she was granted US citizenship in 1917, they may vote to select the electors of that State to the Electoral College. In Puerto Rico they may not vote for electors, not because their US citizenship is flawed but because, as a territory, Puerto Rico has no representation in the Electoral College. Thus, the phrase "non-voting" was correctly removed, but for the wrong reason, not because of POV but because it is incorrect.Pr4ever (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A problem with this purported matter of fact is that it presumes that "voting" and "non voting" are two separate catagories of "citizenship", and that persons or groups of persons can be granted "citizenship" in either the "voting" or the "non voting" category. This presumption is false. U.S. citizens derive voting rights through being a "person of" (simplify that as "citizen of" or "resident of" for most practical purposes) one of the several U.S. States and/or (since the 23rd Amendment) through the DofC. The question of whether or not these citizens are "Puerto Ricans" doesn't enter into it at all. However, mox nix. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw, residents of Puerto Rico do vote in the primaries, but not the general elections. Their delegate in Congress can also vote in committee, but not on the floor. SamEV (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, the Resident Commissioner does vote on the floor, but if his vote is decisive, they revote the issue without him so, while his vote counts in committee (that's why "W" called Fortuño to ask for his vote in committee re the Turkey resolutrion recently) it doesn't on the floor.Pr4ever (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks! SamEV (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the words "non-voting". For the same reasons explained by Pr4ever.Dongolo (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent developments on status

This Puerto Rico article is currently subject to current events in regards to its political status. These events, as we all know, are inherently controversial, so we must exercise due care in maintaining verifiable and sourced facts, as well as a neutral point of view. I've seen sourced additions to the article which I welcome, but some are being used to possibly push an agenda. In the Recent developments on status section, sourced information about the Task Force report and AAV's response was added adding important insight to current developments. However, the wording stated that AAV's letter was a proclamation of official Puerto Rico government policy on the Commonwealth status, when the letter was actually a rebuttal criticizing the Task Force report.

The paragraph in question of the AAV letter (pg. 2, par.4) says the following: if the Task Force and the Bush Administration stand by their 2005 conclusions, then for over 50 years the U.S Government has perpetuated a “monumental hoax” on the people of Puerto Rico, on the people of the United States and on the international community.

However, the Wikipedia article stated the following: Referring to the current Commonwealth status, the pro-autonomy Governor (President of the Popular Democratic Party), recently proclaimed Puerto Rico is the victim of a "monumental hoax", a position shared by the remaining two-major parties: New Progressive Party and the Puerto Rican Independence Party. Thus, according to Gov. Acevedo Vila’s letter, the official Puerto Rico Government’s public policy with respect to the status of the country is: that “the US Government has perpetuated a ‘monumental hoax’ on the people of Puerto Rico, on the people of the United States and on the International community”. The bolding of text was included in the original text, against MOS guidelines, and the last sentence was included twice in the same section for reasons which I assume were errors during editing.

I have removed the text for the following reasons: first, and most importantly, the paragraph in the article is completely redundant to the paragraph that immediately followed it, which actually included the entire paragraph of the AAV letter and maintains a NPOV; and second, nowhere on the letter does it say that the official Puerto Rico Government’s public policy on the status issue is a monumental hoax, that was inferred by the user who added the paragraph.

I hope this explains my actions. Feedback is welcome. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, because of the unique electoral results in 2004, AAV can't speak for the "Government" but for the branch that he heads, the Executive Branch, especially in political status-related matters. The NPP-controlled Legislature, as voiced by Senate Pres. MacClintock in his letter to Sec. Rice, does not believe that the US perpetrated a hoax at the UN in 1953 because it is their belief that the official US position did not include a false representation that the US believed that PR had ceased to be a territory. In fact, I heard him mention in an interview today that the new White House report and a response letter from the State Dept. confirmed the veracity of his position. Second, AAV's letter was simply a follow up to the apparently negative response by White House Task Force members to his Oct. 23 personal appearance, where he hads brought up the hoax argument.Pr4ever (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely to date with this, but didn't Acevedo Vila said something about not supporting the United States in international matters? I think that deserves mention. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so, but I haven't found a source. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 17:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

Everyone please read WP:Lead to understand what a lead section is supposed to be. It is an overview of the article not a political rambling of what people might think about Puerto Rico.

This article's lead should mention sports, geogrpahy, culture, history, etc not just politics. Please let's work toward a proper lead. Joelito (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The most logical thing that I have read on this talk in months. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with this sentiment -- I found the lede to be in serious need of trimming, and that much of the material included there should instead be dealt with in the body of the article, if at all. I made a few minor changes in that direction, but I lack the knowledge of the subject required to do an in-depth re-working, and in any case I'm hesitant about traipsing through this particular political minefield. Somebody, however, needs to do it, and quick, before WikiTaggers come by and slap a half-dozen or so clean-up tags on it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone familiar with IPA spelling add the adecuate one to this article? - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WAY TOO LONGMantion (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph moved here from Political status within the United States section

I moved the following from the Political status within the United States section of the article:

Current status legal restrictions apply only to the Puerto Rico territory, but not to its citizens. Any US Citizen, even those born in PR, may vote for the US president and US Congress from any other part of the world. Conversely, no US citizen may vote for federal level positions from Puerto Rico. This is why many thinkers believe the territory is treated by the US Congress as colonies.

This paragraph, as written, is supported by a cite of

• Trias Monge, Jose; Puerto Rico: Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World; Yale University Press; ISBN: 0300071108.

I have not seen the supporting cite, but the paragraph itself strikes me as badly distorted by PR-centric POV. It might be made more correct by rewriting it something like the following:

Current status legal restrictions apply only to US citizens residing outside of the 50 US States and the District of Columbia. Any US Citizen may vote for the US president and US Congress from any part of the world, including Puerto Rico, if (as a practical matter) that citizen maintains a residence in one of the 50 US States. No US citizen not maintaining such a residence, barring certain exceptions such as those made for members of the U.S. Uniformed Services, may vote at the federal level. This is why many thinkers with a PR-centric POV believe the territory is treated by the US Congress as colonies.

Actually, rather than correct it by removing PR-centric POV, I think this is best simply left deleted. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Watch your words, "PR-centric POV" is a baseless accusation how would you feel if somebody said your work is based on American-centric POV or Phillipine-centric POV its better for you to stay away from this page as its quite apparent that you have a POV of your own. 24.138.194.251 (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

'Scuse me. I wasn't trying to insert a pro-PR or anti-PR or pro-US or anti-US or pro-anything or anti-anything POV on this. I was trying to use the suffix "-centric" ("pertaining to or situated at the center; central.") in "PR-centric POV" to communicate my impression that the writer of this paragraph apparently places undue weight on the importance of a person's PRican (vs. unPRican) attribute here. My understanding is that the presence or absence of this particular attribute matters not at all in the determination of voting rights. My inference drawn from the paragraph, which my use of the term "PR-centric POV" implied, is that the writer likely places more weight on the presence or absence of this attribute (makes it more "-centric") than it deserves in other cases as well, rather than only in regard to the question of voting rights. Perhaps the inference, and the implication following therefrom, was unjustified. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

Politics\Government The following statement is inaccurate:

Because no federal elections are held in any of the unincorporated territories, Puerto Rico does not have electors in the United States Electoral College.

The root cause that Puerto Rico does not have electors in the United State Electoral College is that the U.S. Constitution does not allowed because Puerto Rico is not a state. I refer you to the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution that permit the District of Columbia have representation in the Electoral College.

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This amendment does not make the District of Columbia a state and does not grant it representation in the United States Congress.

In Puerto Rico although have federal elections governed by the Federal Election Commission to the Resident Commissioner in Washington that represent Puerto Rico in the U.S. Congress and the Presidential Primaries or Caucuses of the Democrats Party and the Republican Party since is not a state as required by the constitution (except the District of Columbia) does not have representation on the electoral college.

Reference: Federal Election Commission (Federal Elections are held in U.S. Territories). http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2008pdates.pdf

See also: Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008

See also: Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008

See also: Results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries

See also: Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries

I propose this replacement statement:

Puerto Rico although have elections governed by the Federal Election Commission. Like the Resident Commissioner election and the U.S. Presidential Primaries or Caucuses of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. . By the reason that the U.S. constitution just grant presidential electors to the states (with the exception allowed by the Twenty-third Amendment (1961): that Grants presidential electors to the District of Columbia) is not granted presidential electors to Puerto Rico in the United States Electoral College.

What is being talked about?

The whole bottom portion of the first section, about "the political relationship with the U.S." is so obsessed with dates and names of agencies and organizations that it excludes any actual meaningful content. Such as:

• What did the Task Force conclude?
• What belief is it that the President is standing by?
• Why is the Task Force conclusion controversial to the PDP?
• How do the findings differ from the PDP's understanding?

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Official and Unofficial Symbols

I have modified the Symbols/Emblems/whatnot section, eliminated the reference to "National" (or the alternative "State", "territorial", etc) and left the reference to "Official", when established by law, or "Unofficial", when established by tradition. Pax portoricensis! Pr4ever (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth status

This sentence seems to confuse the two meanings of the word "Commonwealth." Four US States (i.e. KY,PA,VA,MA) are called "Commonwealths" but this makes them different from "States" in name only. See Commonwealth (United States) for more clarification. I changed it to make it clear that Puerto Rico had less autonomy than regular US states.

"However, it also has less autonomy at the federal level than other American commonwealths, such as the Commonwealth of Virginia or the Commonwealth of Kentucky." —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedShiftPA (talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The word Commonwealth regarding to Puerto Rico must be understood in relation to the official name in spanish (Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico) translated into English: Associated Free State of Puerto Rico (state as in country, not as in federated US state or province). See also Irish Free State which was a name used by Ireland before becoming a republic. --Royptorico (talk) 23:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Plazas

Shouldn't the fact that all municipalities have a "plaza" that have a catholic church and an "alcaldía" be mentioned somewhere? Maybe only the churches can be mentioned in the religion section. Maybe you don't think it's relevant. It's kinda sad to see that the biggest part of the article is about politics. Being that politics is a big issue in PR it seems that its hard for editors to focus on other facts and descriptions. Just my opinion. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree but please note that not all towns have city halls/alcaldías in front of the town plaza. Examples: Las Piedras, Gurabo, Yabucoa Pr4ever (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do all still have a catholic church that you know of? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

San Juan also has its city hall and plaza relatively distant from the Cathedral. And, yes, there are Catholic churches in every municipality. --Agüeybaná 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Accurate information on religious groups in Puerto Rico.

There is no source used in citing the oft-mentioned 85% that are Roman Catholics. The 85% defies reality, while it might amount to the number of baptismal records, there are many protestant churches present that in many cases, outnumber the traditional Catholic churches. The presence of protestantism predates the spanish-american war, in one town, circa 1877, a protestant immigrant began to teach the bible to a small group of locals and they became known as "los biblicos". Protestant denominations from the US began their activities on the island as of 1898, each within their assigned areas. These same groups, although still very visible, have been outnumbered by the many local denominations that reflect the local culture. In 1984, in the largest protestant groups' (IDDP) biennial conference, some 400 churches were accounted for within the island. Breaking it down per municipality, it amounts to some 4 churches per municipality.66.231.160.142 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is the CIA Factbook [41]. Joelito (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

interconfessional?!?!

I dont think that this is a word in engligh. Can it be changed or linked to something? 134.134.136.2 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I do not know which language "engligh" is, in English, the word interconfessional does exist. in·ter·con·fes·sion·al [in-ter-kuhn-fesh-uh-nl], adjective: common to or occurring between churches having different confessions.

In any case, if you don't trust this definition, just do a google search of the word. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

GA

This really no longer meets current GA requirements. The WP:LEAD alone is excessively long, plus much of the article is unsourced. Then I'm reading the history section about the 1950 uprising, then its time to go back several years to governance changes, then on to immigration, and then back to 1950 to an assassination attempt the day after the uprising begins. I'm guessing the revolt and assassination are related, and if not that needs to be spelled out, see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Make omissions explicit for other editors. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

*sighs, head down* I must admit the article has gotten out of control, adding undue emphasis to post-1952 politics, including repeating issues and adding assertions where they don't tie into the flow of information. I'll review the article to make the changes. If you could give me a week before nominating at GAR, I'd appreciate it. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, take a couple weeks, its a big article. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Language Section Needs Edit

The last sentence of the opening paragraph is senseless and should be removed: "The Spanish of Puerto Rico is well known for some interesting linguistic features." Interesting linguistic features as opposed to the Spanish of Spain, Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, or maybe Cuba?

The statement also begs the question, well known to whom? The fact that there is not a single reputable source that can be ascribed to that statement definitely argues for its deletion.

--128.103.235.128 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rephrased. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Section "Transportation", 2nd paragraph. "...and is a major hub in he Caribbean. The most recently renovated ..." he = the Rkinci (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle

Do you guys think that the fact that Puerto Rico forms part of one of the three point boundaries of the Bermuda Triangle should be mentioned somewhere in this article? Maybe in the Geography section? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is basically trivia. Not worth mentioning, in my opinion, in the article. Joelito (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How about adding a "See also" section with links to Puerto Rico's "Did you know?'s" which could list that and stuff about the Chupacabra and so on? Well, now that I think of it, there is a link to the Portal which already has something like this. I just think there are so many interesting things related to Puerto Rico and it's kind of hard to get to or find it if you don't already know about it and expressly look for it. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to Did you know in the see also section. Joelito (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Apples to oranges to papayas

The economy section was comparing three very different entities and trying to draw a conclusion based on this comparison. Apples to papayas: Per capita GDP is different from median household income - in three different ways:

1. Per capita means "per person". "Household" implies anywhere from 1 to ... use your imagination... many people.
2. Per capita GDP divides total GDP by the number of people and thus implies an average (mean). "Median" is a different concept.
3. GDP is the total value of all goods and services produced by a state. Income is how much money people have to spend (before taxes).

Apples to oranges: Per capita GDP vs. $14,412 from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund: Promoting Justice for Latinos. I didn't find this in the source, and it seems a little low. I think we would have heard about it if the growth rate of the economy had been greater than 11% for the past four years. Maybe both numbers are wrong, though.

I tried to clean it up to compare GDPs, as I didn't find information on income for Puerto Rico. Ufwuct (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)