Talk:Puerto Rico/Archive 2

I added to the Puerto Rico page, and my contribution was that of Puerto Ricans in the United States. I thought it was significant to the entry considering the large influx of Puerto Ricans living in the United States, but more specifically East Harlem, New York. This is a part of my University research that deals with the history of the Americas. I hope this remains a vital piece of this entry, and if there are any suggestions considering the content, or way it is written please feel free to let me know or edit. Thank you all. --Domenic.Demasi 13:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I received a message to site sources, however I did so at the end of the entry, and in my actual entry I put them in parenthesis..can someone explain the proper format...please!!--Domenic.Demasi 13:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domenic.Demasi (talk • contribs)

The Geography section states: "...Puerto Rico enjoys an average temperature of 82.4 °F (28 °C) throughout the year."

However, the following section - Geology - states: "Puerto Rico enjoys year round summer temperatures, an average annual temperature of 80ºF (26ºC)."

I do not know which one is correct, but the inconsistency is confusing at best. phrawzty 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep. A reference is needed to settle this. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I found this very complete table here [1], now how do we write the line? -凶 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Temperatures vary by location. No point in listing all locations or getting an island-wide average. The best option is to give an island-wide average range. Joelito (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's usually 75-90ºF in San Juan during the summer, but it feels like 120 :-) --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 15:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Temperature in Mayaguez is worse,believe me--BoricuaPR 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you're right. I went there once to participate in a Math competition at the RUM, and I almost died from the heat :-) --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's the humidity. Its killer. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 03:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think this section is misleading and confusing to someone who is not familiar with the puerto rican history and sociology (someone can think that these are minority groups living in puerto rico or that puerto ricans are a 'bunch of people' which is false). First, it classifies Tainos with the Puerto Rican flag which is incorrect Also gives too much emphasis on minor inmigrants, who are not even a minority group (like the japanese in Peru, chinese in Brazil or Cuba [there is a chinatown in La Habana] or germans in Chile) that did not represent a significant role in Puerto Rico's past or present history/sociology. No other country in Latin America has a section like this one (with flags) while we all know that Latin American populaton is a blend of races, that formed with the passing of time a nationality in each country. In Puerto Rico the 3 major races are the Spanish, the Caribbean Natives (Taino tribe) and then the african slaves who came from eastern africa. (These blend formed the Puerto Rican nationality, a hstoric process that lasted more than 400 years in the making). I think that this section needs to be deleated.--Royptorico 00:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a comment, please don't delete the statements in the box without any prior discussion, some of these matters might be somewhat controversial. -凶 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Heritage section does not explain that the fundamental historical races are: 1) Spanish, 2) Naitive indian or taino and 3) African to a lesser degree. This is key knowledge. I also question the percentages used next to each race or group. Also the national flag of Puerto Rico represents the Puerto Rican people, not the Tainos of the 1500's. I agree that Puerto Ricans are a blend of these three races that blended together to form one nationality after many centuries like Royptorico well said. This is a fact. --vertical 03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don’t think this section should be deleted, but corrected. I know for a fact that many groups of Europeans came to the Island and established themselves in very specific regions; Corsicans around Yauco and Ponce, French and Germans in the West-Center and so forth. (I know cause I’m a true Puertorrican mutt, as my sister and I like to call ourselves sometimes).

The statement "Native American (About 52% of the Puerto Ricans are mestizos(mixed Taino and white) 0.04% of full Amerindian descent. The heritage of white Puerto Ricans (30%) comes from one primary european source:" should be changed to reflect the Census 2000, even though this may also be inaccurate, but at least is official and can be cited.

There should also be more information about the groups that came in the 20th century that conform a big part of what Puerto Ricans and Puertorrican culture is today, Cuban and Dominicans. Many of us are already second and third generation, but still try to keep some ties with the country of origin of our ancestors.Solcita 19:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. This should not be in the main article. Also, the statement that 'Dominicans and Cubans form a big part of what Puerto Ricans and Puertorican culture is today' is a large exageration that is not supported by actual facts.--vertical 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well... it could be a link. And for the actual facts, it is very difficult to account for all Dominicans in the Island, because many of them are illegal immigrants or were not interested in participating in Census 2000. I’ve remember reading on the newspaper there where 250,000 to 500,000 Dominicans in Puerto Rico. And probably Cubans are already of second and third generation. The Puerto Rican Community Survey says there where 20,251 Cubans in Puerto Rico at the time of the investigation, but that’s probably people born in Cuba, and not Puerto Ricans of Cuban origin. As soon as I find more information, I’ll let you know. Solcita 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, is anyone for or against changing the statement: "Native American (About 52% of the Puerto Ricans are mestizos(mixed Taino and white) 0.04% of full Amerindian descent.The heritage of white Puerto Ricans (30%) comes from one primary european source:" to reflect th Puerto Rican Community Survey of 2005 (from census.gov) At least this may not be controvertial, since they are official numbers. I arleady have the information alreadu avaible, so please discuss. Have a beautiful day you all!Solcita 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well i dont think it should be deleated since all it may need is to try and be clearer somehow...even though i dont think its too missleading at the moment...maybe adding actual 2005 facts from the census here...[Puerto Rico 2005 fact finder] ..shows that 76% identify as White..little less than 2000 census...maybe since 5% didnt participate in the survey..... And this section is to show what the Heritage is...not nationality..its different.. We are not saying these people are a minority group...although i did read on the 2000 census that 2.1% of puerto rican identify and Spaniards..(All must be Grandparents)...but we know that the majority of white poeple came from spain and many other corsicans..came etc.......remember its Ancestry/heritage not nationality....not all Puerto ricans look alike. Spain21 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the whole section. Puerto Rican heritage is just a combination of demographics and culture both of which already have sections. If there is relevant information regarding this it can be added to any of those sections. Furthermore, the section was just a list with unreferenced numbers. Joelito (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can somebody explain this "The large majority of residents living in metropolitan areas are bilingual[citation needed]." If no one can come up with a citation for this I believe it should be eliminated. I live and work in the Metro Area, and most of my colleagues, neighbors, and well, most of the people I've meet and known throughout the years, are not bilingual. One thing I have notice, the upper the social class (not necessarily the education) the more prone to be bilingual.Solcita 19:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your statement. Learning a second language in school does not make you bilingual (definition of the word Bilingual:Using or able to use two languages especially with equal or nearly equal fluency.[American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language]. Those who have studied[mostly middle-upper class] in private schools ,which are a minority of the population in the metropolitan area, are closer to this definition but still they are not completly bilingual (they don't have equal or near equal fluency, equal fluency in both languages is the key word to describe bilingual), in reality they are proficient or have a proficiency in the English language which is not the same as being bilingual.--vertical 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I support Solcita's statement, I had the luck that growing up my father had good wealth and I learned English at a young age before moving to the U.S. I can recall being one of the few students to know the language when I studied in the island. -凶 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good that all of you agree. I've always heard that only 20 percent of the population is bilingual by definition. As soon as I find a good source with accurate numbers for this, I'll let you know. Cheers!Solcita 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey! That's not true. I study in a private school and I am most certainly bilingual. --Boricuaeddie 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the way, as soon as I figure out how to edit an article, I will try to eliminate the statement "The large majority of residents living in metropolitan areas are bilingual[citation needed]. If someone disagrees, please, include actual numbers or citations. And if someone can erase it before I do, please go ahead. Thanks.Solcita 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can bet that the majority of the people that is giving there opinion of Puerto Rico don't even live in Puerto Rico.To get a job in the majority of places you have to be bilingual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.201.209 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a big diference between being bilingual and comprehending English, being bilingual is being able to both speak and write in English and Spanish, not being able to speak perfect Spanish and being able to write in both but speak a Ingles patea'o. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Exactly… I agree… and by the way… I live in Bayamón and work in Hato Rey’s “Milla de Oro”… Usually, in a job interview, they give you a ridiculously easy written English test… one that anyone can pass. That’s the deal here in the Island, you are supposed learn English during your 12 years in school, but I remember how some of my classmates in “la Iupi” had an awful time with text books written in English… and I see almost every day at work. Solcita 19:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Under the section Government of Puerto Rico:

Puerto Rico has limited representation in the U.S. Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a nonvoting delegate, and the current Congress had returned the Commissioner's power to vote in the Committee of the Whole, but not on matters where the vote would represent a decisive participation.[24]

The reference is to:

Rules of the House of Representatives

In this substantial document I was unable to find this allowance to vote (to make law, not in committee). The closest seems to be Rule III, Section 3(a), "In a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, each Delegate and the Resident Commissioner shall possess the same powers and privileges as Members of the House." If this means they can vote, it would seem there's no restriction. But the preceding section on voting mentions only Members.

So can the Resident Commissioner ever vote? Can someone point to the rule and section number? The Wikipedia article on the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico says he or she can't. --Wfaxon 05:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not have an exact source but I know for a fact, the Puerto Rico Resident Commisioner cannot vote in the general assembly of the House of Representatives. However, if he or she is member of a Commitee and/or subcomitee he/she is allowed to vote. [www.house.gov/fortuno Resident Commisioner Luis Fortuño's Website] Anyways what it says above is pretty self explanatory, the Commisioner cannot vote to make law, but can on comitees. Nexxos Media 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I found photo space that includes a photo that no longer exist. An administrator can take this down, but I enjoy having more spread around on the edits no matter how big, or in this case small the edit may be. Thank You. --Apologies2all 18:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article refers to Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport as "serving the Virgin Islands". I don't think that is strictly true with respect to either the British Virgin Islands or the United States Virgin Islands, as each has several airports of their own. Although most do connect via PR to long haul flights, St. Thomas has direct flights to the U.S. and most airports in the BVI and USVI also connect down-island. I am not sure that the comment is even strictly true for the Spanish Virgin Islands as both Culebra and Vieques have their own airports, and Culebra even has its own airline. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Serving" in airport terms usually means the main final destination of the passengers who use it. This is to differentiate from locality. For example, the Newark International Airport is located in Newark, New Jersey, but also serves the Greater New York City area, in spite of New York City itself having two other international airports. Primary sources clearly state LMM "serves" the VIs along with a chunk of the Caribbean (the airlines' route maps etc). Thanks! --Cerejota 06:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have set up a temp protection on the article because of the constent reverts in the infobox as to if George W. Bush is or isn't the Chief of State of Puerto Rico. I suggest that a civil discussion be carried out here in the talk page by anyone who is interested so that it can be determined what the facts are in this issue. I will not mediate, but I believe that a general consensus could be reached. I know that when it comes to politics, discussions could become heated, that is why I ask that politics be put aside and to stick to facts. So, go on and discuss and let's keep this civil. Tony the Marine 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I personally say no, there are several factors influencing my point of view but the most notable point is that if the island's people can't vote for him, how can he be considered chief of state? even worst if Puerto Rico isn't a state how cn it have a chief of state? I have observed the edit war going on in here for the last week but kept silence however the CIA factbook is know to have mistakes better find a more reliable source. 凶 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have never recognized Mr.Bush as my president, and I never will, and I doubt anyone else in Puerto Rico does. We're not a state, so how can he be our chief of state? I suggest we don't include him as that, unless a reliable source can be found. --Boricuaeddie 01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I personally believe that Bush is the Chief of State of the "United States" the 50 states of which form the United States, but since Puerto Rico is not a "state" of the United States and since the people of Puerto Rico have no say in the electoral process of the President of the United States, then he is not the Chief of State of Puerto Rico. Now, this is my personal opinion and I'm not interested in any debates since I have other things to do, but from my understanding, Chief of States which are not elected by the people are also known as dictators. Oh, another thing, I stopped believing in the reliability of the CIA or their book of facts ever since they misinformed the President of the United States in regard to WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). Tony the Marine 02:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Very well said, Tony. I agree with everything you said. In my seven years of taking History class in school, I have never been even mentioned that Mr.Bush is our Chief of State. --Boricuaeddie 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

"...if the island's people can't vote for him, how can he be considered chief of state? even worst if Puerto Rico isn't a state how cn it have a chief of state? I have observed the edit war going on in here for the last week but kept silence however the CIA factbook is know to have mistakes better find a more reliable source"..."I have never recognized Mr.Bush as my president, and I never will, and I doubt anyone else in Puerto Rico does. We're not a state, so how can he be our chief of state? I suggest we don't include him as that, unless a reliable source can be found."-ddie First of all your point of view is completely unconsencuential. Whether you see Mr. Bush as your President is not important. Due to the fact that Puerto Rico is still a colony, the Head of State is the Head of State of the Metropolis(for lack of a better word) in this case Mr. Bush. Secondly, If your opinion did matter, some puerto ricans DO see Mr. Bush as their President. Third, Heads of State who are not elected by their people are not dictators, for in example Monarchs are not elected and yet they are their countries Heads of State. Fourth, the CIA Factbook as published is completely reliable, their informs for the President or those published as this are not. Fifth, history courses are not to be used as sources for they are taugh by a Professor, who can be biased, and knowing the History Professors of Puerto Rico, most tend to be independentists, and would not mention this fact. Sixth, Jamaica, New Zealand, Australia, Barbados Belize and other countries have Queen Elizabeth II as their Head of State, without electing her as such, and without being part of the United Kingdom, hence, for the President to be Puerto Rico's Head of State, Puerto Rico does NOT have to be a state. I hope this clears your doubts and misinformation User talk:Nexxos Media

• Removing the CIA reference that has been here like FOREVER just because you dont like it NOW, does not promote a civil discussion, it does not promote sticking to the facts. There is no such thing as a 100% reliable source, there is no such thing as an unbiased reference, they all have their preferences in some way or another. There is no such thing as a source that's correct 100% of the time, not the CIA reference, and none of the other references cited in the article.

While a reference supports something "i like" then it's good; the moment that reference is used to support something "i dont like" then suddently, it is not reliable; is that it?

You stopped believing in the reliability of the CIA, fine, that does not mean you should remove it from the article. If i tell you that i dont believe in the reliability of reference "x", would you remove it from the article?

Anyway the facts that Puerto Rico has 1) only internal (YES ONLY INTERNAL) self government, and 2) the fact that the government organized by the PR constitution does not account for 100% of PR's government (there is also the Federal Government) can both be argumented using other references. Even better they can be observed by everyone living in PR daily (that is if you open your mind to see them). They dont need the CIA reference to tell them that.

If the Federal Gov does not have jurisdiction over PR, why is there a Federal Justice System present in PR? (They are not only processing political figures, but even doctors.)

Ahh you dont recognize or dont fell loyalty to the Federal Gov, fine, thats your RESPECTABLE position, but thats NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is that the Federal Gov does have jurisdiction over PR, that should be reflected on a fair and balanced WIKIPEDIA article. If the head of the local internal Goverment is included then the head of the Federal government MUST be there too.

We dont vote in Federal elections (while living in PR), that only reflects the fact that we dont have FULL democracy in our present political situation, but that does NOT remove the fact that the Federal Gov DOES have jurisdiction over PR as a US territory. Does that make the Federal government "dictators" over PR, we can decide that personally, thats NOT the issue either, The issue is that the Federal Gov does have jurisdiction over PR, that fact should be reflected on a fair and balanced WIKIPEDIA article. If the head of the local internal Goverment is included then the head of the Federal government MUST be there too.

Yaguez 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

George W. Bush IS the Chief of State of Puerto Rico.--BoricuaPR 21:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• While I have been observing the discussions here, I have been analyzing the situation. Wikipedia is not about what "we want", "like" nor "believe", it is about facts. I have seen other websites which state that the President of the U.S. is the Chief of State of Puerto Rico, however none of them are Official government websites nor reliable since Wikipedia does not accept personal websites as reliable sources. Then I see that Guam which has the same situation and which considers the President as their official Head of State. What I recommend is that the section of the Foraker Act of 1900 or the Jones Act of 1917 which states the legal relationship of the President of the United States in regard to Puerto Rico be stated and cited. Any legal document which states that the President of the United States is the Chief of State of Puerto Rico can be considered as reliable if sourced and should settle the situation. Tony the Marine 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The official website of the government of Puerto Rico has the Gobernador (governor) as the head of government. The constitution of Puerto Rico also states that the head of government of the country is the Gobernador (governor). None of these documents talks about a 'chief of state', much less about the 'chief of state of the US' or any other elected official of the US .PR does not have a Chief of State under the 1952 constitution, the constitution of the country at present time, PR does not elect a chief of state, PR does not participate in the US elections to elect one either. PR is not and does not have the political status of Guam (which is still a non governing territory[2]) Puerto Rico is self governing. The article already reflects that PR is a self governing unincorporated territory associated with the US. Self government does not mean sovereign or the wrong political concepts of "external self governing only" or "internal self governing only" and the main article in wikipedia already explains that clearly. If we are going to use the CIA factbook to add an incorrect info about CHief of state then we had to add a correct info too,the word Country in the first sentences of the article. The CIA factbook classifies PR under Countries. Then i vote to substitute the word 'island' or unincorporated territory for 'country' in the whole article and sub articles. Like I said, PR does not have a chief of state or elects one. The head of the government is the Gobernador (governor). Leave the template like it has been--vertical 04:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• and ... I am sure that neither the Foraker Act of 1900 nor the Jones Act of 1917, state that the President of the U.S. is the Chief of State of Puerto Rico. That is why I am asking those who consider that the President of the U.S. is the Chief of State of Puerto Rico, show the section in those Acts which makes such a statement. If there is such a statement (which I doubt) then they may have a case. Tony the Marine 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Let's take into account the three main documents which establishes the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States and I am looking for this statement "President of the U.S. is the Chief of State of Puerto Rico". The Foraker Act of 1900 does not state anywhere that the President of the U.S. is the Chief of State of Puerto Rico:Foraker Act of 1900. The Jones Act of 1917 does not state anywhere that the President of the U.S. is the Chief of State of Puerto Rico: Jones Act of 1917. The Constitution of Puerto Rico, which let me remind you, was ratified by the "Congress of the United States" does not state anywhere that the President of the U.S. is the Chief of State of Puerto Rico: Constitution of Puerto Rico. All of these documents were ratified by the Congress of the United States and are reliable verifiable sources which proof that the United States has never considered its president the Chief of State of Puerto Rico. As I said before, I would like to see a legal document ratified by the United States and Puerto Rico which establishes that the president of the United States is the "Chief of State of Puerto Rico". I want to see that exact term stated Tony the Marine 08:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The laws are primary sources, and we would be engaging in original research if we used them as sources (WP:SYNTH) - however, I think there is a narrow definition here regarding the laws that apply: the Constitution of the USA completely applies to Puerto Rico, and it clearly states who the president of all of the territory - State or not State - under the jurisdiction of the Constitution is... I will not WP:SOAPBOX as to what I think of being a prusaino, but this is the fact of the matter.

The CIA fact book is a tertiary source and so is Britannica [3], but don't provide sourcing for their information, and hence it are not reliable sources in the middle of a controversy (WP:CONTROVERSY).

Wikipedia en Español in es:Gobernador_de_Puerto_Rico states that the president of the USA is the head of state, however, this has no sources (I did my first es edit just now tagging it as such). es:Puerto Rico names George W. Bush as "Presidente" (not "Jefe de Estado") in the info box, again with no sourcing.

We are between a rock and a hard-place, and to be honest this has to do with the fact that Puerto Rico has no legally-stated Head of State, but tertiary sources simply assume it is the President of the USA, without any authority or research, to fit their template. A possible solution is to not mention any: It is not for us to resolve the lack of clarity in the legal relationship between the USA and Puerto Rico, as other tertiary sources obviously do, but to report on it.

As such, I think we either adopt the format that es:Puerto Rico uses ("President") as there is no doubt the President of Puerto Rico is the President of the USA , or we leave the information out. But certainly primary or tertiary sources are not to be trusted if they are the only source, in particular as there is an POV controversy in this regards. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• From those who consider that the Executive Branch of the US Federal Gov has nothing to do with PR, i ask the following, look into Foraker Act of 1900, and/or the Jones Act of 1917, but look for something like this "it will be impossible for the Executive Branch or the President of the US to develop or/and implement any policy concerning issues affecting Puerto Rico". If you do find that statement, then you have a case. But then, the people in Congress responsible for the following, had no idea of what they were taking about (and i doubt it):

"11)In a letter dated December 2, 1994, President William Jefferson Clinton informed leaders in Congress that an Executive Branch Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico had been organized to coordinate the review, development, and implementation of executive branch policy concerning issues affecting Puerto Rico, including the November 1993 plebiscite."

Were they also clueless when they said this?: (and i doubt it)

"(4) In 1950, Congress prescribed a procedure for instituting internal (YES INTERNAL -my addition-) self-government for Puerto Rico pursuant to statutory authorization for a local (YES ONLY LOCAL -my addition-) constitution. A local constitution was approved by the people of Puerto Rico, conditionally approved by Congress, subject to congressionally required amendment by Puerto Rico, and thereupon given effect in 1952 after acceptance of congressional conditions by the Puerto Rico Constitutional Convention and an appropriate proclamation by the Governor. The approved constitution established the structure for constitutional government in respect of internal affairs without altering Puerto Rico's fundamental political, social, and economic relationship with the United States and without restricting the authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause to determine the application of Federal law to Puerto Rico, resulting in the present `Commonwealth' structure for local self-government. The Commonwealth remains an unincorporated territory and does not have the status of `free association' with the United States as that status is defined under United States law or international practice."

The last sentence sugest that it is misleading to put the word 'association' in the template, without explaining that PR does not have a Compact of Free Association , which is a 'sovereign nation' to 'sovereign nation' type of association.

See reference:http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr131p1&dbname=105& Yaguez 17:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yaguez: this is not a soapbox. Please take your political debates elsewhere.

This is an encyclopedia rule by certain content policies. I suggest you read and understand the five pillars of Wikipedia, specifically "no original research" in its WP:SYNTH specification. I also suggest you study what we think constitutes a reliable source. And never forget we seek verifiability not truth.

You shouldn't put information up you think is correct, or even that is obviously correct, unless a secondary source creates the narrative.

As I stated, in this question we only have primary sources (which would constitute original research if we do anything beyond a direct quote) and tertiary sources (who do not provide sourcing for their information, and hence are less than reliable). So we either leave the information out, or find secondary sources. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Cerejota this is a political issue, there is no way around that. If you do not like the subject (politics), then you go elsewhere. About Wikipedia policies, they are for EVERYBODY, not just for me. And as it is right now, Puerto Rico article does not presents a WP:NPOV, dealing with concepts such as 1)'self government' (should include internal), 2)'association' (there are 'sovereign nation' to 'sovereign nation' type of associations, under Compact of Free Association that is NOT the case of PR, explain it, or dont say 'association'), and 3)presenting the 'commonwealth' without any context regarding the Federal Gov (President and Resident Comisioner).

Yaguez 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• User:Yaguez, Cerejota is acting in civil manner as was requested at the begining of this discuusion. By stating "If you do not like the subject (politics), then you go elsewhere." you have made a personal attack upon Cerejota and that is not permitted in Wikipedia. Cerejota is a very respectable contributor in our project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and rules and policies must be followed. This is not about politics nor our own personal points of view, but about facts that can be verified by reliable sources. Yaguez, please try to keep cool and civil. Tony the Marine 04:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kind comment, Tony. We are not always in agreement on everything, but certainly agree that this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. We have our fights elsewhere, if at all ;).

Yaguez: please read the policies I provided links to. Calm down. WP:COOL helps. You are obviously trying to push your point of view, which is OK, as long as you understand that we have content rules we need to follow.

Your insistence on not providing actual sources for your comments, but engaging in WP:SYNTH is really harmful to the project: I had to request someone else fix an image that needed fixing simply because I can't because your uncivility has led to page protection.

Please stop or we will have to understand that you are in violation of WP:POINT and instead of wanting to engage in constructive editing, want to to disrupt wikipedia.

I still have faith you will read the pages I gave you links to, as they are the most important, non-negotiable rules in english wikipedia, and that you will understand that without reliable sources, we do not have much to work on. Primary and tertiary sources, in the middle of a controversy, are not reliable sources unless a secondary source. For example, a good book on Federal/Commonwealth relationship might be a reliable source, an investigative/journalistic article on a reliable newspaper (note: doesn't an OpEd or other opinion articles).

I am laying down the law here, not giving my opinion: these are the core content rules, you must follow them. You are not. Hence we are locked down. I am not happy, as I like the free as in freedom part of the free encyclopedia.

In the armed forces, when the drill instructor punishes the entire platoon because of one recruit's fault, the rest of the recruits get unhappy.

Tony is the drill instructor, we all are recruits, and you are the guy who can't do a seven minute mile and has us cleaning latrines with toothbrushes.

Please, I beg you, don't be that guy.

I think we have provided you with enough links, rationale, and even ways you can start being productive for you to be able to understand what is being said. If you choose to ignore these things, you do so at your own peril.

Notice how I do not address any of the political points you raise, because this is not a soapbox. Source it, baby, source it! Thanks!--Cerejota 06:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Semi-protection from article will be lifted August 9, 2007. Editing to info box must follow established Wikipedia policy of verifiable reliable sources. Continuous editing of article in violation of established policy may be deemed as vandalism and the editor or editors may be subject to actions leading to being blocked from editing. Tony the Marine 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I vote No. The Governor is the head of state/government according to Article 1,Section1/Article IV Section 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 of the Constitution of the Estado Libre Asociado de PR(PR's Constitution and 'Law of the land'). [4]. According to international law and Resolution 748-VIII 1953/UN Session-8th of the United Nations, Puerto Rico achieved self government and states "the association of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the USA has been established as a mutually agreed association" it also states that "the compact agreed upon with the USA, the people of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico have been invested with attributes of political sovereignty which clearly identify the status of self government attained by the Puerto Rican people as that of an autonomous political identity" [5].--Royptorico 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Royptorico you are wrong. The constitution no where on the 1st article says the Governor is the Head of State. Neither on the entire 4th Article appears anything at ALL saying the Governor is the head of state. The nearest expression is that the executive power will reside in the Governor(Article IV, Sect. 1) and does that mean head of state? NO. Furthermore, if the UN did accept Puerto Rico as an politically sovereign entity, why isn't the Puerto Rican flag in the UN headquarters? The answer is really simple: Puerto Rico is a colony still, with no sovereignity whatsoever. Or tell me, has Puerto Rico ever declared war to another country? Or does Puerto Rico determine even with whom it trades? The asnwer to these questions is NO. Truth is neither Puerto Rico nor the US defined exactly who is the Head of State, however according to the international system, since the POTUS is the one who in truth deals with international and state matters regarding the island, he in truth is what we could call a de facto head of state, which means that by custom or practice he is so, as no explicit definition exists. If we further inquire, in complete truth, Congress has the supreme authority over the island, (US Task Force Regarding Puerto Rico's status), and could be the Head of State if we should inquire that much. Nexxos Media —Preceding comment was added at 16:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• (5)In 1953, the United States transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for circulation to its Members a formal notification that the United States no longer would transmit information regarding Puerto Rico to the United Nations pursuant to Article 73(e) of its Charter. The formal United States notification document informed the United Nations that the cessation of information on Puerto Rico was based on the `new constitutional arrangements' in the territory, and the United States expressly defined the scope of the `full measure' of local self-government in Puerto Rico as extending to matters of `internal government and administration, subject only to compliance with applicable provisions of the Federal Constitution, the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act and the acts of Congress authorizing and approving the Constitution, as may be interpreted by judicial decision.'. Thereafter, the General Assembly of the United Nations, based upon consent of the inhabitants of the territory and the United States explanation of the new status as approved by Congress, adopted Resolution 748 (VIII) by a vote of 22 to 18 with 19 abstentions, thereby accepting the United States determination to cease reporting to the United Nations on the status of Puerto Rico.

(6) In 1960, the United Nations General Assembly approved Resolution 1541 (XV), clarifying that under United Nations standards regarding the political status options available to the people of territories yet to complete the process for achieving full self-government, the three established forms of full self-government are national independence, free association based on separate sovereignty, or full integration with another nation on the basis of equality.

Since the clarification of United Nations standards in 1960 probably never says "the commonwealth is NOT in association" and since the citation the "association of the commonwealth" was made in 1953 by ONU not by the local Constitution which is a primary source, i agree to using the word "association", but complementing(; complementing will probably avoid undoing) the use of "association" with the following:

4)..... "The Commonwealth remains an unincorporated territory and does not have the status of `free association' with the United States as that status is defined under United States law or international practice."

See reference:http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr131p1&dbname=105&

So lets say in the template something like "unincorporated territory of the U.S with an association (not Free Association) as a Commonwealth"

• On the issue of "internal self government": self government is half the Truth, "internal self government" complements that Truth, and it is a VERIFIABLE TRUTH

• On the issue of the President or Chief of state, the discussion here on talk page appears to support the use of "President" , more importanly it is also verifiabiable.

Please note i'm trying to find a common language here, expressing all views. Dont plain and simply undo me, or i'll plain and simply undo you.

Yaguez 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This attitude will not get you far. Advertising that you will edit war with anyone that disagrees with you is not a healthy way to carry yourself in Wikipedia. Joelito (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please note, i'm actually trying to avoid an edit war, by complementing. Please read carefully again. Thanks

Yaguez: you just basically stated a clear violation of WP:POINT: you are disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Please stop being disruptive: WP:SYNTH, as a form of WP:OR, is immediately removable from wikipedia - we do not always do it, but we can. We have tried to appeal to your common sense and showed you the applicable policies and guidelines. I ask you (again) please stop and think about what you are doing. You will get banned from editing this article if you continue, and that would be bad, because we need more editors, not less. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

File:Bandera de Lares.JPG should be replaced by commons:Image:Lares Revolutionary Flag (original).jpg as per deletion log.

Thanks!--Cerejota 13:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Done Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 14:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

{{editprotected}} According to this, the page is fully protected, not semi-protected. Could someone replace the semi-protection template with the fully-protected template? It's really misleading. --Boricuaeddie 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, now it's not protected at all; the protection expired. I've removed the protection tag; if problems (vandalism, etc.) persist, you can contact me or put up a request at WP:RFPP. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, anyway. --Boricuaeddie 03:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Territories of the United States has a rather interesting formulation:

Unincorporated organized territories (commonwealth)

To refer to Puerto Rico. Thoughts?

Thanks!--Cerejota 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article presents Puerto Rico as being something close to a Compact of Free Association relationship. Clearly, PR is a integral part of the United States. Subordinate to the Federal Government, under jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and (most importantly) having the same amount of self government as any state. Internal self government is not the same as being truly self governing. The article needs to be updated to be brought into line with fact and not perception. -MichiganCharms 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

*Yawn* it is not fundamentally misrepresented, and the hyperbole is not helpful.

However, there is indeed a debate around these things, for example, Puerto Rico participates in the Olympics (something no state in the US does), and so on and so forth. The last time the USA, under international law, pronounced itself, it claimed Puerto Rico was not an integral part of the US. Et al, ad nauseam. We are not goign to resolve this debate here, we can point our readers to it.

However, I would ask that rather than declaring unverified "truth", you would take the time to provide us with reliable secondary sources that establish your original research above. WP:SYNTH is a bitch, ain't it? Thanks!--Cerejota 21:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually Puerto Rico has something called Soberania deportiva I'm sure you have heard this term right Cerejota? Actually even if Puerto Rico someday becomes a state the country would still be able to participate in the Olympics indepently because unlike most people seem to think, the island doesn't actually participates in these events because the U.S. allows them, they do so because the local Olympic commision actually met the requiremnts that the Olympic Comitee demands. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

And that "sports sovereignty" would disappear immediately after we became a state of the union. The US Olympic Commitee as well as the US federal government has never, and will never, allow a state of the union to represent itself separately in the Olympics. That isn't even a debatable point. Flybd5 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hardly, this would involve several debates and crap I'm not interested in discussing right now, however remember that the members of the Puerto Rican Olympic comitee know a lot of influential people on every latin american nation's comitee, this discussion is anyways speculative and is only reserved for those who still hope that the status quo will be resolved. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since when are the Olympics an arbitrator of anything? Australasia, Independent Olympic Participants, Unified Team have all competed... yet do they prove anything?

Here are your requested citations: [6] - Puerto Rico is self governing because Congress allows it. [7] which sends it's appeals to the [8] which just goes to show it is subordinate to Federal courts. As for it having some amount of self government greater then any state, internal self government means it has the power to govern internally, within the guidelines of American law. The burden of proof is on you to provide that Puerto Rican self government is different then government at the state level. -MichiganCharms 00:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Michigan the validity of that report has been hotly debated amongst several academics and polititians in the island. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico is not an integral part of the US. PR is for the US congress an unincorporated territory with a compact of association as a Commonwealth. The US supreme court already stated that PR is not part of the US and is not incorporated into the union(see: Balzac Vs People of Puerto Rico; 1922-258 U.S. 298, 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627). in 1952 the people of Puerto Rico established and voted for their own constitution and self government also the UN recognized PR's self government in 1953 and the US agreed to this. [[9]]--vertical 22:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the source! Finally! This is were all the original research falls down. Regardless of the "true" nature of the relationship - which is a hotly debated topic - the United States describes Puerto Rico in a certain fashion to the international community, and the international community accepts this description. Furthermore, the US supreme court has clearly established the unincorporated nature of Puerto Rico.

Again, there is a debate arounb these things, and we should probably reflect this, but wikipedia errs on the side of the courts when it comes to controversies under their consideration. Attempts to introduce original research in contravention to this reality must be deleted. --Cerejota 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, on the report made by the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico states that Puerto Rico is just a territory with a degree of self-government (* just a degree *), subject to the plenary powers of Congress. If the U.S. decide Puerto Rico is not a territory anymore but a land with no government, or anything, they can just do that and no one could say something. So technically, Puerto Rico is an integral part of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.130.130 (talk) 19:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

It is the US-Congress, not the US-President who can modified or end the compact of association between Puerto Rico and the US (The government of PR challenged the task force opinion at the UN this past summer), and this has not happened. The UN also has not revoked Resolution 748--Royptorico 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It has been prosed that U.S. Government disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico be merged here because of the nature of that article, the article covers a extremely limited scope with very low chances of improving beyond a stub, hoever some of that information can be useful in this article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Agree. Could also be merged with Politics of Puerto Rico. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Support. In its present form, the page is very misleading. Even the title is misleading. The U.S. constitution extended electoral suffrage for federal elective positions to the "people of the several states". When U.S. nationality and citizenship subsequently spread beyond that group of people, the suffrage provisions of the constitution were not extended to take that into perfect account. Heck, it wasn't until after the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961 that the people of the District of Colombia could vote in Presidential elections. Like Puerto Rico, D.C. residents still have no congressional representation. As I understand it, the situation of Puerto Rico with respect to enfranchisement is similar that of other insular areas. -- Boracay Bill 03:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Support to maintain the entry as is - The information is correct; the arguments related to the Constitution do not contradict that the U.S. Government's branches, and particularly the U.S. Congress, have not acted to offer enfranchisement to U.S. citizens living in the territories (as it does to U.S. citizens living in any other part outside the United States, as for example, those U.S. citizens living in France, Germany, Madagascar, etc.) The fact is that Congress has to offer the minimum guaranteed in the Constitution, but nothing precludes it from acting in conformity with its decision make Puerto Ricans citizens of the United States (effectively inviting them to be part of the U.S. demos without offering them an equal rights/responsibility paradigm in the U.S. "democracy"). The U.S. Congress may do so in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, but it has chosen not to for now. Despite the fact that the U.S. Government assumed sovreignty over Puerto Rico, and unilaterally acted to confer U.S. citizenship on Puerto Ricans, it has not acted to afford those U.S. citizens the same political rights, immunities and priviledges that were one of the public objectives voiced as part of the Spanish-American War of 1898, and allegedly part of the justifications offered by the U.S. to enter into a "war of liberation" with Spain that proceeded to invade Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.

Why question an entry that expresses facts without even going into the more objectionable "normative" underlying themes that surround the U.S. Government's chosen path regarding who --within its body politic (its demos of U.S. citizens)-- it has opted to enfranchise and who it has opted to maintain in apparently perspetual disenfranchisment? The entry does not even go in to exposing the embarassing aspects such as those that elicit that after 109 years of U.S. sovereignty over Puerto Rico and 90 years after the U.S. Congress acted affirmatively to incorporate Puerto Ricans into the fold of U.S. citizenship, the Congress has not acted to offer equal political, economic and social rights and responsibilities to the U.S citizens living in the territories as it has partially done so for those U.S. citizens living in the District of Columbia. Those are other facts that may be embarassing to some, but are still extremely pertinent and verifyable facts; how one interprets that fact is another thing, but that is an relatively undisputed fact regardless of it being legitimate or illegitimate.

Going further than this entry actually does, one may underscore various other facts or ideas that may be closer to the normative level. For example, the fact that the Constitution offers a minimum of rights as a threshold to the states does not contradict the fact that the U.S. Congress has chosen not to act to "harmonize" its decision to provide U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans (by the way, without asking them or their insular legislators if they approved of said action or not). Moreover, it is true that the United States is one of the few countries in the world, if not the only one, in which there is a claim to the effect that there exists a de jure and de facto "universal suffrage", but the government chooses not to enfranchise more than 4 million citizens living in the oversees territories it conquered and over which it chose to assume jurisdiction and sovereignty, even after going the "extra mile" of taking the unilateral step of passing a law to integrate Puerto Ricans within the demographic sphere of United States citizenship.

Is it not, I ask of you, that an integral part of the spirit that serves as a motor for Wikipedia is to offer as clear, fair and accurate picture of information available rather than accept explanations that gloss over inaccurate generalizations or potentiate the risk of perpetuating plain misconceptions that have been debunked by established and respected scholars?

I do not see how it would be justifyable to delete this entry or avoid facing the facts it states? Would it not constitute a poor servcice to the Wikipedia readers that access this resource to obtain a better and clearer information source rather than one which is prone to elminate entries that offer verifyable facts?

Since I believe this entry is necessary to offer a better and more accurate picture of reality than that which existed without this entry, I support the entry to be preserved as is.

All the best,

Hypathia 03:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's done the same way as mentioned at Disfranchisement already. That-Vela-Fella 03:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article is just a POV fork. If anything useful can be merged then by all means do so. Afterwards, just nominate the article for deletion. Joelito (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Disagree The article is a POV fork like the above Wikimember said. I would nominate this article for deletion instead of merging it with the main article.--Royptorico 23:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Disagree This article is a brazen POV violation and should be deleted, not merged. The claim that Puerto Ricans are being disenfranchised by the U.S. government is an ideological position shared by most members of the Puerto Rican Independence Party and some members of the New Progressive Party (the pro-statehood party of PR). At most, only 45% of the PR population would agree with such a statement. The 45% who support the present Commonwealth status (a status that has won majority support in 5 different referendums) in the Popular Democratic Party do not feel disenfranchised. Indeed, the claim is used by the two opposing parties as a way of persuading Commonwealth supporters towards their position--simply put, the disenfranchisement of Puerto Ricans is not just 'debatable,' it is actually debated (especially during election season). As such, this claim belongs in the NPP and PIP articles...it might even be possible to find a place for it in the Puerto Rican politics article.

However, it cannot be placed in the main Puerto Rico article because it is not an established fact about the island. If it were, then we would also have to believe that a whopping 45% of Puerto Ricans are consistently voting against their own enfranchisement--that is, that they consistently vote against their own right to vote. This is, of course, an oxymoron (ranks right up there with 'the slave who freely chooses slavery'). The only way to avoid it from becoming an oxymoronic claim is if one assumes that the 45% who vote for Commonwealth are either "ignorant," "uninformed," or "confused." But since all of these claims are ideological in nature and debatable by definition, they do not belong in an encyclopedia article that purports to provide facts about Puerto Rico. JRGBruno 05:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Reiterating support for entry to stay as is:

JRGBruno: Could you explain why you say that the Commonwealth supporters have won five status referendums? Also, after you respond to that, could you supply information about what the Commonwealth supporters were asking a vote for, i.e. was it for the status quo or for a change within the "Commonwealth" status?

Moreover, could you offer your take on why is it pertinent that the "Commonwealth" supporters (most of whom, by the way, support a change of the status quo) vote one way or the other?

Finally, is it not the case that the U.S. government holds ultimate sovereignty and control over Puerto Rico and that Puerto Rican U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico cannot vote in national elections for the President and Congress that controls their destiny and holds sovereignty over their people and their country?

Since that is a fact, regardless of one's opinion of it and how people vote on it, I support the entry staying as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypathia (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hoping to read your response, all the best, Hypathia 17:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Response and correction (still in Disagreement with the merger):

Thanks for the note Hypathia. I made a mistake on the "5 referendums" claim; as you probably know, there have been 3 (dunno why I was thinking 5). All of them have been won by Commonwealth supporters. As for "why" they have won, well I guess that depends on your interpretation of the political and social circumstances in each. But the point is that they have. You can find the results for each in the following website: http://eleccionespuertorico.org/cgi-bin/events.cgi .

Now, your claim that "Puerto Rican U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico cannot vote in national elections for the President and Congress" is misleading and ultimately inaccurate. It is not "Puerto Rican U.S. citizens" who are unable to vote in Federal elections, but rather any U.S. citizen, regardless of their place of origin, cannot vote in a Federal election so long as their primary residence is on the island. By the same token, any native of Puerto Rico can vote at the Federal level if they move to any of the 50 states. The arrangement is therefore territorial in nature and does not target a class of "people" within the U.S.

Still Disagree, let me know if that clears up your questions. JRGBruno 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Response to User:JRGBruno

Dear JRGBruno,

Thank you for your reply. I am going to respond briefly and posssibly, later, I may expand the response.

What "referendums" are you referring to, when were they held? If you are referring to the 1998 "Plebiscite", I would like to know why you say "commonwealth" won? Is not that an interpretation that chooses to gloss over the "facts"?

I referred to the Puerto Rican U.S. citizens because not all Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. While it is true that all U.S. citizens loose their right to enfranchisement if they reside in Puerto Rico, that is discriminatory to the extent that U.S. citizens do not loose their right to vote if they move to countries that are not considered a "territory of the United States". Also, while it seems as "territorial discrimination" at face value, an underlying difference is that Puerto Ricans who are U.S. citizens loose their right to participate in a "government of the people [all its citizens], for the people, by the people" if they choose to live in their homeland. If you read the jurisprudential justification for such a difference in treatment, there are many arguments, of which many include unappologetic racist motivations.

I still support entry as is

Regards,

Hypathia 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• SUPPORT integrating into "Puerto Rico" article but also SUPPORT to preserve original article

The article specifies that that, as U.S. citizens, loose the right to vote when moving to a territory. Was not that clear in the original article, Bruno? It is a fact, is it not, that U.S. citizens may move to any other place in the world, and still retain their right to vote. But, if they move to a U.S. territory, then they are not given equal treatment than when they move to, let's say for example, South Africa (as correctly stated by Hipathia).

Anyways, that is not the geist of the matter. The crux of the matter is that the United States has a very large amount of persons, that for whatever reason, compose part of the U.S. citizenship and, at the same time, are not allowed to vote for their rulers in the executive and legislative sections of national government (of these, a disproportional amount happen to be Puerto Ricans, although U.S. citizens residing in other disenfranchised territories also exist). For that reason, it should be included in the Puerto Rico article.

On a different front, this is a very important issue that trascends Puerto Rico and other territories, because it is essential to give a more balanced picture of whether the U.S. is factually a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY or whether it is only a nation which gives most of its citizens the right to vote, but NOT ALL CITIZENS are equal in their right to vote. SOME CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE SIMPLY "VOTELESS". They are as "Voteless" (as they are excluded from national election) as the American Colonists before the Revolutionary War. SO, is the U.S. really a representative democracy? (NOT INCLUDING AN ENTRY ON THIS WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO NOT INCLUDE ALL ESSENTIALLY-PERTINENT INFORMATION ON A VERY CENTRAL SUBJECT THAT DESERVES PARTICULAR ATTENTION AND FOCALIZED EXPOSITION). That is why, in summary, it is important to ALSO have a separate entry like the one that was originally created.

Thus, I SUPPORT current U.S. Government disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico entry and ALSO SUPPORT integrating it into the Puerto Rico main article.

--- Merrymanhappy 23:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC) ---Reply

What happened to the useful discussion and exchange of ideas we could be having here?

Merrymanhappy 20:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Disagree For all the reasons people have stated above, the proposed merger is simply a statement by some people with a particular political bent. Each year, more and more of my colleagues in education warn students off from citing Wikipedia in academic papers. If only there weren't so many people with a political or personal axe to grind, this could be the encyclopedia it was meant to be. --Danaidh 23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

With the exclusion of that last comment wich was clearly biased without any particular basis behind it, we are pretty much missing a consensus, actually after reading Joel's argument my possition has also changed, if no concensus has been reached by tommorow I will take this to AFD. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Caribbean H.Q., I think we are still working on discussing the possibility of a consensus. I respectfully submit that the discussion should continue since, among other reasons, JRGBruno has yet to answer various important questions regarding his point of view and ideas expressed on this matter. In essence, I think we could all benefit from letting the discussion and exchange of ideas continue since there are various questions that have yet to be answered. What do you think, Caribbean H.Q.? All the best, Hypathia 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Disagree For all the reasons stated above by Danaidh, JRGBruno, Royptorico and Joelito (and any others I may have missed out). The article should be nominated for deletion or at the very least it should be balanced. As it is the article makes no mention of the fact that US citizens residing in any other current US territory also do not vote for President or voting Congressional representatives (Senators and Representatives). It also makes no mention of the fact that every single US territory in history also had the same supposed disenfranchisement until they became States (or became independent). Hypathia and some other users mentioned the fact that US citizens in foreign countries can vote, however it isn't as simple as that. US citizens in foreign countries can vote, only if they have a permanent address in their last US state of residence. If a US citizen lived in the United Kingdom for 10 years and took out British citizenship and gave up/sold their last permanent residence in the United States then that US citizen shouldn't be able to vote. A high profile and typical example should be Hussein Mohamed Farrah Aidid who was a naturalized US citizen but returned to Somalia and became a politician (even becoming President though it never amounted to anything because of Somalia's problems). He gave up his permanent residence in the US (and probably his citizenship - not sure) and in so doing probably gave up any ability to vote in US elections (unless someone can provide a source that Aidid still voted in US elections even after returning to Somalia permanently). If a US citizen's last permanent residence was in any US territory then they shouldn't be able to vote. It is not some preference or enfranchisement of Americans living overseas so much as allowing Americans who are abroad (e.g. diplomats, soldiers and so forth) but who have a permanent residence back home in the US and who show an ability and an intention to return to the USA (via having that permanent residence) to be able to vote. As had already been outlined above, this limitation is a territorial limitation (albeit one extended to cover Americans who are temporarily abroad). 72.27.91.26 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear 72.27.91.26 - One of the problems with your arguments is that these U.S. expatriots who live abroad may continue to vote indefinately, even if they hold office abroad in a legal fashion (i.e. holding a position in a foreign government, such as being an Athens City Councilman/woman after decades living outside the United States). Why, then, is it the case that a U.S. resident residing in New York looses his enfranchisement if she/he becomes a resident of Puerto Rico (even if she or he only wishes to reside there for a relatively short period)? Best wishes, happy to hear your response and ideas, Hypathia 01:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I should add that while some organizations deem U.S. territories’ disenfranchisement as “unjustified”, what I thought we are discussing –first and foremost- is whether Puerto Rican U.S. citizens ARE or ARE NOT disenfranchised from voting for the Executive and voting-members of the Legislative Branch that effectively holds sovereignty and rules over them. So, in its shortest framing, is there or a justified basis for an entry that explains this apparently important fact.

On whether justified or unjustified, see below for opinions on matter of whether this is justifiable or not (on the “ought to be”-level of discussion):

"American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their commander in chief. The citizens of each territory are able to elect a non-voting representative to Congress, but they are unable to cast a ballot for president. These U.S. citizens are denied a right to vote for president for no other reason than they do not live on the U.S. mainland.

No state should deny the right to vote to a citizen allowed to vote in another state, and citizens not living in states should have as much of a right to vote for president and members of Congress as those living in states”.^[1]

STILL FAVOR MERGER AND MAINTAINING ORIGINAL ENTRY AS IS OR IMPROVED

Sincerely, Hypathia 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hypathia, thank you for your quick responses. This is certainly an interesting debate. The law in question is the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act or UOCAVA (without which American expatriates could not vote). Now a lot of the details are left up to the states, but the most crucial parts are the definitions. The Act defines an "absent uniformed services voter" as any member of a uniformed service, the merchant marine or the spouse or dependent of such members who by reason of active duty is absent from the place of residence where the member (or spouse or dependent thereof) would be otherwise be qualified to vote in. The Act also defines an "overseas voter" as any absent uniformed services voter (already defined), a person who resides outside the United States and is qualified to vote in the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States; or a person who resides outside the United States and (but for such residence) would be qualified to vote in the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States. The Act also defines the United States (for the purposes of the Act) to mean the 50 States, the District and Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and American Samoa. It isn't surprising that the Act only applies to voters outside of US territory, because it is rightly assumed that any voter qualified in say...the State of Alabama should find his/her way home to Alabama to vote if they are on US soil. If the voter was in the US Virgin Islands, then if they really wanted to vote they should hop on a plane back to Alabama just as how any voter qualified in Alabama would have to likewise hop on a plane back to Alabama if they found themselves in California. If they choose not too, then they don't really want to vote or they're in some spot of difficulty that the government cannot be accountable for (the US is a not a nanny-state). The other key elements of the act are that the persons registering as overseas voters must be qualified according the State's own qualification laws. As a result of this US citizens residing abroad are not allowed to vote indefinitely, they are only allowed to vote as long as they qualify. If Alabama's qualifications for voters has no residency period required (which would be very strange indeed) then voters who came from Alabama could vote indefinitely, but voting laws almost always have residency requirements. Some state laws also specifically note that residents serving in uniform, attending schools or in prison are not considered to have lost their residency. Unfortunately, no matter what one may think of this, the fact is that someone moving from a state to another state or to a territory is not considered to residing overseas and thus their next (and thereafter only) valid residence is in the other state or in territory. If it were any other way then that would open the way for multiple voting wherein voters could register in two or more states and attempt to vote in all of them. It would also lead the strange situation of voters voting in more than one local election in the same country (which would mean one voter would have two or more votes in the same country thus violating the principle of "one man, one vote"). If qualified Americans in the UK vote in local elections, they most likely cannot vote in their state local elections even if still qualified to vote for President because local elections always have a minimum residency requirement that must be fulfilled in the period immediately before the election. Even if they could vote in local elections in both the UK and their state of origin it wouldn't matter since the votes would be in totally separate countries and therefore the voter has only one valid vote per country. If American citizens go overseas and gain public office, they may still qualify according to each of the 50 various state laws, but in many (but not all) countries only citizens can acquire high public office (such as a Presidency) and would be required to renounce any other citizenship (they would no longer qualify by virtue of not being US citizens). For your example of the New York resident losing his/her ability to vote by residing in Puerto Rico, he/she would have lost the ability to vote as a resident of New York upon leaving that State and residing in any other area of the US. If the ex-New York resident is only residing temporarily in Puerto Rico then he/she can easily vote again if they return to New York. The exact same thing would have happened if he/she had left New York to reside in New Mexico Territory in before New Mexico became a state in 1912. It would also have happened if the New York resident went to reside in Hawaii Territory or Alaska Territory before 1959.

I thought we were discussing whether or not to merge this article and the Disenfranchisement article (whose title is rather POV since it implies that the US Government intentionally disenfranchises residents of territories as opposed to residents of territories being disenfranchised by virtue of the Constitution and not US Government policy). No matter, if you want to discuss the topic of enfranchisement/disenfranchisement then I'm okay with that, although that discussion probably belongs on the Disenfranchisement article's discussion page. Now as to "is whether Puerto Rican U.S. citizens ARE or ARE NOT disenfranchised from voting for the Executive and voting-members of the Legislative Branch that effectively holds sovereignty and rules over them."....as I said before the issue isn't as simple and straightforward as that. JGBruno noted earlier that it is a territorial limitation which is true. Puerto Rican U.S. citizens who move to New York can vote and probably still consider themselves (and others probably still consider them) as Puerto Rican. Persons born in Puerto Rico and all current residents of Puerto Rico are not permanently disenfranchised because they can take up residence in any of the 50 States and vote there. Now we all know it isn't practical for the 3 or 4 million people living in Puerto Rico to move to one of the states, but all 3 or 4 million wouldn't be eligible to begin with (only those 18 and older) and of the potentially eligible voters I would guess that around 40-49% of those at most (statehood supporters) would actually want to vote. I would guess independence supporters would have little interest in voting and logically Commonwealth supports shouldn't have much interest either since no one can have their cake and eat it too (they can't logically support remaining a highly autonomous unincorporated territory while wishing to have the all the trappings of a state - otherwise what would be the point of territories and states?). But even so, the 1 or so million who probably do want to vote probably all can't leave Puerto Rico to take residence elsewhere to vote. However, if the vote is that important to them then some of them might. Even in the 50 states, voter turnout in the past 40 years has been usually moderate (in my opinion, I don't consider anything below 75% to be high - some countries have mandatory voting), however voter turnout has never reached even reached 65% in the past 40 years (the closest was 63% in 1960, the worst was 49% in 1996). Since not all Puerto Rican residents who wish to vote would find it practical to move to a state, then if they really wanted to vote their other option would be to bring a state to them (i.e. statehood). In its shortest possible framing, the entry explaining voter eligibility with regards to residence is probably best outlined in articles that relate to US elections, US election laws and (generally) the article on US territories (since this issue also applies in a historical context from the 1780s right up until now). I don't think that this issue should be included in the Puerto Rico article (other than the relevant wiki-link) or in an article that focuses specifically on Puerto Rico.

The opinions on the matter from fairvote, while admirable in their broad goal (participation in democracy) make use of troublesome examples. Firstly the draft hasn't been used since Vietnam and is unlikely to be used for the foreseeable future. But even if it was used, then it is true that resident of US territories could be drafted but couldn't vote, but then any US serviceman drafted at age 18 couldn't buy drink in some places in the US either (some places have the age limit at 21). It also attempts to link the fact that residents voting for non-voting delegates (not really Representatives) cannot vote for the President, although that is a poor link because delegates are not even required under the Constitution, so residents of territories aren't required to vote for anything at the Federal level. It is by long established custom that delegates from the territories are included in Congress in order to allow the opinions of the territories to be voiced in the Federal government. Examples like those detract from the fact that despite what people feel, the provisions of the Constitution that has lasted over 200 years just doesn't provide for territories to be able to form part of the Federal government that is supposed to have near total disposition over them as outlined in the same Constitution. If fairvote and others really wanted to bring about fundamental change then they should settle upon a new model of voting and representation for both the States and Territories in the US federal government (the only proper way to allow for residents of territories to vote for President without removing the Electoral College system). They could follow the Canadian model wherein territories are entitled to only 1 Representative in the lower house regardless of population and 1 Senator in the upper house/Senate - this would keep the distinction between states and territories and also keep the inherent encouragement to become a state that the Constitution offers through its benefits of statehood; unfortunately it would mean that a territory like Puerto Rico would have fewer Electoral votes than its population would otherwise dictate which would mean their votes count for less. Another model is the Australian model where territories are fully represented in the House of Reps. but have limited representation in the Senate (3 senators as opposed to 12 for each State and even then only the mainland territories get senators). Something similar could be applied...say full representation in the House, which would represent the people and not the states, and no senators (or at most 1 senator) in the Senate, which would represent the states as entities and not the people of the USA. This at least would give the territories Electoral votes close to what their populations would require. The other option which could keep the House and Senate as is (i.e. representative of States) would be to do away with the Electoral College system entirely and have direct voting for the President. This would allow all citizens to vote for their head of state and still keep the distinction between states and territories (there has to be some) and keep the benefits that encourage territories to become states if possible (or to do what they ultimately desire, whether it is statehood, independence or continue as territories). Any of these options could be done through a constitutional amendment, but such an amendment will never occur if those who wish to vote never actual settle on how they plan to effect universal voting for the President and if they don't start campaigning for such an amendment. Using examples like the ones presented at fairvote do nothing to promote any amendment apart from just crying "unfair" and declaring laudable aims without presenting credible plans to achieve those aims. Those residents who also fight it out in court are wasting time and money (both their money and public money) since courts only interpret laws, they don't make them. They would have been better off donating their money to a campaign to abolish the Electoral College or to get territorial representation in the House only. Especially considering what is required for an amendment to pass today (3/4ths of the States or 37/38 States and usually within a specified time according to recent amendment tradition) it would be paramount for those who really, really want to vote to get support for an amendment organized. Well best wishes to you Hypathia and I still disagree with a merger of the articles (and I still think the Disenfranchisement article needs to be either fundamentally reorganized to reflect NPOV or both sides of the issue or it should be deleted altogether).72.27.91.26 07:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well said, 72.27.91.26. I can't add anything substantive to that, but I would suggest that participants in this discussion and interested lurkers take a look at Voting rights in the United States, Birthright citizenship in the United States of America, and United States nationality law. Those articles (and, probably, others) touch on this subject. Some of the content in those articles which touches on this subject has recently been added by a non-expert (me), and I would appreciate it if persons more knowledgeable in this area than I would look over my changes and correct any boneheaded errors which i might have made. -- Boracay Bill 11:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• 'Merge, delete, if keeping greatly expand balance and move to NPOV title. Rmhermen 15:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear 72.27.91.26 - Thank you for your extense response. You make some interesting points. Nevertheless, a large portion of your last posting refers to strategy rather than to define whether Puerto Ricans and other U.S. residents of U.S. territories are in fact precluded from voting in the process of electing their own national government. As I think you may be able to agree, regardless of the possible justifications or injustifications, this is a fact, right? I would, nonetheless, like to add, that I am opening to discuss this and hear your ideas. Best wishes and hopes to listen to your thoughts, Serapis Alexandria 03:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, a large portion of the last post that referred to strategy was in response to some of the quotes Hypathia gave from fairvote. But I did write initially that the issue isn't a straight and simple one. I agree and it is true that residents are US territories are unable to vote in elections for national governments based on their residence, but they are not precluded (prevented) from doing so totally. As I wrote earlier, if any of them moved to a state within the US, then there would be nothing to stop them from voting (except maybe age or any other qualifications). But the short and simple answer would be that "yes, residents of US territories are unable to vote in elections to form the national government". I personally wouldn't use the term "Puerto Rican" unless it was specifically defined, since the term can strictly refer to the US citizen residents of the island only, regardless of where they were born (which would be the more legalistic reference when considering this issue) or it could refer to any person who was born in Puerto Rico or to parents from Puerto Rico whether or not they are resident on the island or elsewhere. If the first definition is used then, yes "Puerto Ricans" are unable to vote in national elections. However, if the latter term is used, then I would have to say that "no, not all Puerto Ricans are precluded from voting in national elections", since a good many persons live in New York and vote in national elections but were originally from Puerto Rico or had parents from that island and any Puerto Rican living in Puerto Rico today can move to any of the 50 states and begin voting.72.27.8.125 00:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (72.27.91.26)Reply

Disagree: The ostensible topic of the article is not actually specific to Puerto Rico, but pertains to all U.S. Insular areas. The actual content of the article is mostly about the views of certain Puerto Rican politcal parties, and belongs in Politics of Puerto Rico if anywhere. -Stellmach 19:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, there are U.S. insular areas that are enfranchised within the U.S. executive and legislative electoral process, such as Hawai'i. On the other hand there are also former U.S. insular areas that are enfranchised as per their right to elect their national government branches of executive and legislative powers. Such is the case, for example, of the Philippines. With respect to whether Puerto Rico's disfranchisement is or not exclusive to it, that does not mean that it is enfranchised. Regardless of whether there are U.S. insular areas that are enfranchised and others that are not apart from Puerto Rico, the fact is it is still disfranchised.

Hoping to hear your response, Serapis Alexandria 01:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Hawai'i is a U.S. State and has been since 1959. Were you not aware of that?

The Philippines became an independent Republic in 1946. U.S. electoral law no application in the present-date Republic of the Philippines. The RP follows RP electoral law.

U.S. citizens who are not considered Residents and Citizens by either (1) one of the 50 U.S. States or (2, since the 23rd amendment to the U.S. constitution) the District of Columbia, are not enfranchised to vote in U.S. federal elections, with some exception being made for U.S. Government employees whose nonresident status results from their U.S. Government employment. This includes U.S. citizens living in the insular areas (Puerto Rico is one of the several U.S. insular areas) and includes U.S. citizen expats living outside of the U.S. and not maintaining a residence in a U.S. State or in the DofC. -- Boracay Bill 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting article. I haven't read the whole discussion here, since it's far too long. Obviously the article is a POV fork - we shouldn't have an article about disenfranchisement in PR, but rather, a section is a comprehensive article related to voting rights in the United States. Another idea is to look at the way it's handled for DC (see Category:Home rule and voting rights of the District of Columbia) Guettarda 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Boracay Bill,

I respectfully submit that your arguments drive at the fact that Puerto Rico's residents are in fact disfranchised (as well as other U.S. citizens residing in U.S. territories). What you do is precisely offer arguments that are commonly utilized as instruments to precisely justify that disfranchisement. Thus, those arguments go to show that Puerto Ricans are disfranchised; whether that is legitimately or ilegitimately done, that is surely another question. Nonetheless, it remains a fact that any U.S. citizen living in Puerto Rico (or other U.S. territories) are precluded from voting in their national government elections for the corresponding executive and legislative branches' elections. While that may help to explain why U.S. Citizens who are Puerto Rico residents (Puerto Ricans by residence) are in fact disfranchised, it is only pertinent to dilucidate whether they are or are not disfranchised to the extent that those arguments appear to confirm they are disfranchised since they offer an explanation based on the Constitutional interpretation of why they are disfranchised. Thus, rather than contest disfranchisement, it seems to me you offer arguments that drive towards confirming that fact.

I am keenly aware of what you expressed regarding Hawai'i and the Philippines. What I explained is that the U.S. Congress has used its Constitutional-derived power to enfranchise present or former U.S. insular areas either through admission to statehood or through "disposal" of a territory through the grant of sovereignty. In both instances, the present U.S. citizens of Hawai'i and the former U.S. nationals of the Philippines obtained the recognition of their right to participate in the election of the national government that holds sovereignty and ultimate power over their territory. In the case of the District of Columbia, Congress has acted to "jump-start" the executive-elections' enfranchisement process of DC residents through a constitutional ammendment (23rd Ammendment). At present it is possible that, through U.S. Congressional action, DC residents may be recognized the right to participate in legislative national-elections, through the selection of a voting-member of Congress to represent DC at the U.S. House of Representatives.

Regarding U.S. citizens living "abroad", as I understand it, a U.S. citizen may move from -say, New York- to live for an extended and indefinate period outside of the United States, and he/she will be able to continue to participate in the election of his/her government (from abroad).

All the best, Serapis Alexandria 03:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. Yes, I recognize the constitutional limitations on enfranchisement of US Citizen voters. I recognize that those limitations include US Citizen residents of all parts of this planet which are not located within one of the US States or the DofC, if those residents do not also maintain a primary residence which is located within one of the US States or the DofC. I recognize that PR is not a US State and not located within one of the US States or the DofC. Where you and I differ is that you want to cast this in a light portraying it as somehow special to PR. As I see it, this is in no way special to PR.
2. Hawai'i became a US State, and this extended the franchise to citizens of that State.
3. The Phils gained independence and went their own way. What the RP did or did not do regarding enfranchisement has no connection whatever with the US enfranchisement situation.
4. A US citizen may continue to vote in his State of residence by absentee ballot so long as the State continues to consider him a citizen of that state and continues to send him absentee ballots. The details vary from State to State. This is in no way special to PR, to PR citizens, or to PR residents. Depending on one's definition of "abroad", absentee ballots may not need to be filed from "abroad". Is PR "abroad"? The answer to that depends on one's definition of "abroad". My understanding is that a US Citizen who is a citizen and resident of (say) New York State and who happens to be living in Manchuria, in the RP, in Guam, in PR, in the UK, or wherever; can, if he maintains his citizenship and residence in New York State, continue to vote in New York State by absentee ballot while residing in whichever of those non-NY places he resides. As far as I understand it, this is in no way special to PR. -- Boracay Bill 04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Talk Section Participants:

Food for thought:

-The U.S. Government's Official Webpage on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asks a rhetorical question which it immidiately responds as follows:

"What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens?"

"The right to vote".^[2]

-The same U.S. Government's Official Webpage on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services states:

"Citizens have a responsibility to participate in the political process by registering and voting in elections."

-In 1917, the U.S. Government unilaterally "granted" most Puerto Ricans United States citizenship without granting the corresponding voting rights associated with U.S. citizenship in the aforementioned official U.S. Government docuemnt published on the internet.

-An absolute majority of the four-million plus U.S. citizens living in the U.S. territories have not been afforded the right to vote in the national elections of the government of the country which holds ultimate sovereignty over them and the territory they reside in (if they choose to live in their "territorial" homeland).

-An absolute majority of those "territorial" four-million citizens are living in Puerto Rico (although it is also true that there is U.S. Government disenfranchisement of U.S. Citizens residing in Guam and U.S. Government disenfranchisement of U.S. Citizens residing in the U.S. Virgin Islands', etc.)

-The U.S. Government has acted to afford partial voting rights to U.S. citizens that reside outside of the 50 states, as is the case of U.S. Citizens living in the District of Columbia (a non-state disrict territory).

-Through a combination of action and inaction the U.S. Congress and other branches of government have contradicted the Official U.S. Government's Public Policy stated in the aforementioned published document, by maintaining the disenfranchised state of about 1.33% of the population it recognizes as U.S. citiezens, only because of the place of their residence which is generally the place of their birth.

-Regardless of the opinion one may hold on these facts, it is nevertheless a verifyable truth that U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. territories are disfranchised from participating in national elections that ultimately holds power over them.

-The state of disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens residing in U.S. territories contradicts the U.S. Government's officially-stated public policy as evinced in the aforementioned publication.

-To the best of my available knowledge, information contained herein is -as a whole- not in the nature of opinion since, on the contrary, it states verifyable facts.

-These facts are important to the preparation of a more complete Wikipedia as an independent entry and as an entry to the applicable scenario in Puerto Rico.

-An entry as the one that exists should exist independent of the Puerto Rico article and similar entries should be prepared for other U.S. territories where U.S. citizens are disenfranchised on the basis of their voluntary or compelled residence in said territory.

-A summary of the important information contained in the entry object of this dialogue should be "merged" into the Puerto Rico entry, although the original entry should be maintained as an independent entry that continues to exist.

I am open to hear your feedback regarding the information and facts I offer and I am more than open to read anybody's opinion with an open mind that permits me to change my opinion if convinced by persuasive arguments or new information that is influential enough to point in another direction.

I hope all of you have a great week and have fun discussing these fascinating topics, yours,

Hypathia 15:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This may be my final response to you here on this topic, as it seems clear that this discussion is not contributing much (if any) value to this article. this discussion has become a blogish exchange of views, and this is not an appropriate venue for that.

You may be entirely correct in what you say above; in any case, what you say appears on a quick read to be mostly correct. However, corrrectness of characterization aside, it remains true that in order to change the situation the U.S. Constitution would need to be amended — as was done with the 23d amendment which addressed (some argue "partially addressed") the situation WRT the DofC. Yammering on endlessly about perceived injustices, or even about actual injustices, won't change the fact that the U.S. Constitution needs to be amended in order to change the situation. -- Boracay Bill 09:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is reasearch on this around and some people think that Puerto Rico was never autonomous......it seems to have had been able to self-rule itself for only afew months from november 1897-april 1898 the same as an 'overseas province' of Spain, until the US declaried war.....even though the USA warned Spain not to loose its last colonies...as it new they (cuba and PR) were very important strategic places.... I think there should be alittle section added on to the Spanish coloy section about this...as someome deleted this...this is Very similar to the present autonomous Canary Islands. When PR was still a spanish colony ....some were in favor for the more political freedom and some were not happy..and some were happy just the way they were....Just as the people are in the present-day U.S control situation..some still dont want independence and prefer it to become a state...even though it would be a large threat to thier language status and cultural status...and some beleive independance is the best way forward and others like to stay the same...that seems to be part of being a territory.

The Problem about Puerto Rico having its offical name change to Porto Rico till 1932...this is not a POV..this is written in many official Puerto Rico websites...all over the web.....what people think?? Spain21 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I will budge on this one and admit that I made a mistake. PR did have a short-lived autonomy since Nov. 25, 1897 until the onset of the Spanish-American War. The autonomous government was established on Feb. 12, 1898. However I believe that this should have a brief mention on the article. I do not believe it merits a new section when at most it will be two sentences long. Furthermore, I wish that politics would not get merged into this addition. Just stick to the facts (which I presented above). Joelito (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• OK..obviously alot of poeple dont know much about this, since the U.S section seems to get alot of explanation on its granted autonomy in 1952 as a commonwealth ......and maybe help to this addition? if you like....sice it is important, since its the ONLY autonomous rule its had in its 500 year history and still isnt represented in the U.S..courts and cant vote for presidential elections...as it would have been able to do, being an 'overseas province' of Spain in 1897-98...and would have had the same rights as the Spanish mainland.

If you like use some of this info..expaining how it may of worked...Info on the Colony go to the section of USA Seizes Puerto Rico on the page and read alittle on this..

Also maybe add alittle on the name change to Porto rico in the american section also....since this just isnt meantioned..Spain21 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rican historians have written about how the american occupation forces of 1898 were not able to pronounce correctly the spanish name Puerto Rico, they started writing it as Porto Rico which was easier to pronounce for english speakers while the people were dumbfound and angry with the name change. The name was change back to it's correct form (Puerto Rico) in the early 30's during the nationalist revolution years.--Royptorico 00:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The town of Coamo's date of incorporation was 1579, not 1570, making it the third oldest town in PR, right after San Germán. I just made the correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.9.153.122 (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have reinserted, sourced and improved deleted text regarding this subject. The assertions in this section are almost entirely settled historical facts. The concerns regarding the island becoming a "piggy bank" for the Cheneys and the Obamas that fly in to collect donations and fly out without any real contact with PR was a matter of public comment as recently as in today's newspapers, as noted in the footnotes. Rather than strike out the entire section, I would invite other contributors to improve this section and delete only those phrases and sentences they may believe do not adhere to Wiki policies.Pr4ever 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have re-deleted these section because:

1. The Puerto Rico article is a summary article (see WP:SS) and the section provides detailed information.
2. The section belongs to the Politics of Puerto Rico article.
3. The politics section in this article is already too long and controversial to add further controversial or POV statements. Joelito (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

In order to distinguish PR from fully self-governing jurisdictions, I added the word "partial". Residents do not participate in the selection of their head of state, their national legislative branch or the selection of district, appeal or Supreme Court judges whose determinations are applicable to residents. A recent OAS report documented than non-totally self-governing nature of PR's current relationship within the United States constitutional framework.Pr4ever (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico does not have 'partial' self government (self government and sovereignty are two different terms). It is self governing since 1952 (with own constitution) with a compact of association with the US called Estado Libre Asociado (literal translation: Free Associated State; or US gov. translation: Commonwealth), their national government is the Head of Government (Governor), The legislative branch (senate and legislature) and under the constitution of PR, the Supreme Court is not elected by voters (different from US). (See : [[10]]and UN resolution 748 (1953)[11] and PR official Gov. website (Constitution, Gov. branches (see weblink), National symbols) [12].--Royptorico (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is your POV. The Head of State is the President and he is not elected by voters in PR. Virtually every official US Govt. declaration makers it clear PR is an organized unincorporated territory of the US. As such, while PR has a greater degree of self-govt. than, say, Guam, it is not fully self-governing. Thus, the use of the word "partial" is factual and correct, to distinguish PR from fully self-governing jurisdictions.Pr4ever (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Under International law there is no "partial" self governing, "partial self governing" is the same as non - self governing. Puerto Rico achieved self governing status (non sovereign) in 1952. This is recognized by the UN and accepted by the US in 1953 when it was taken out of the UN list of non self governing nations/territories. Guam, US-Virgin Islands, American Samoa are non self governing, Puerto Rico is self governing. See all the references above in my last post.--Royptorico (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You wrote: "Under International law there is no "partial" self governing, "partial self governing" is the same as non - self governing." You see, if you have reliable sources that express that, put it in the article. You don't need permission to do that. If Pr4ever has sources that say the opposite, he can do the same. It's simple. You guys don't reall have to agree on every issue. Each can separately present his POV, so long as it's backed up by good sources, and it should not be removed. If the sources prove to be wrong, or miscited, then that's a different thing. SamEV (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

After carefully analyzing the progression and development of Puerto Rico Wiki Page, WE have concluded that it has been a FLAGRANT project to UNDERMINE the EXPLOITATION of POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY by:

• User:Pr4ever
• User:Joelr31

with, but not limited to:

• A False Portrayal and Impression of Puerto Rico
• Distorted and Garbled Language Styles
• No Insight about the Real Culture and Social Situation of Puerto Rico
• No Enlightenment about the Education Status of Puerto Rico
• Article Format Incertitude: Jumbled Structure and Disordered Composition
• Unacceptable, Impetuous, Amateurish and Atrocious Article Hierarchy
• Poor Copy Writing
• Reversed Political Propaganda represented with the point of view of several individuals writing this article to vindicate and exonerate the point of views of other Wikipedians.

The purpose of Wikepedia is to EDUCATE every GENERATION with FREE THOUGHT, KNOWLEDGE and INTELLIGENCE, not SPECULATION or POINT OF VIEWS COMING FROM SEVERAL POLITICAL PARTY FANATICS. The Past Version was Confusing, Polarizing, Partisan and full of Bafflement. This article should not be reverted as it is now being examined by other administrators.

I agree, i didnt see any change in the content of the article as well (new and old version). Only a minor fix. Also, both users have been manipulating the process of building the article and eradicating the entrance of other wiki writers. (Whitepowderkark (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC))Reply

Blocked account. You were warned. Joelito (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

After a rundown on these two users, I have concluded they been building wikipedia articles with a blatant and notional point of view in regards to sovereignty. (Gowanus Public Bath (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC))Reply

Please stop trolling or all your accounts will be blocked. Joelito (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This page has been edited by hundreds of editors, and great number of them have contributed to the politics and sovereignty information. While there are ongoing disputes over this, it does not warrant accusations. This is downright disruptive. If you continue, you're likely to get all your accounts blocked. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 23:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The only edits I made, accompanied by an explanation in the discussion page, were the following:

1-I added the word "partially" to the existing phrase "self-governing". The article itself notes that Puerto Rico is not fully self-governing. For example, it recognizes that PR's head of state is the President, yet voters in Puerto Rico don't participate in his (or her) election. While the Congressional legislation in 1947 and 1950-52 added important self-government powers to Puerto Ricans, it is not yet fully self-governing. That is why the PDP, the NPP and the PIP all seek additional governing powers, either through the "enhancement" of the current status, statehood or independence. This is not a POV but undisputed facts.

2-I added the word "organized" to the existing phrase "unincorporated territory". Under US constitutional law, as noted by the 2005 White House report cited in the article, territories are classified as "incorporated" or "unincorporated" and as "organized" or "unorganized". Puerto Rico, according to the Insulas Cases, remains "unincorporated" (and once again all 3 parties are in agreement on this undisputed fact) and, with the approval of the Organic (as in organized) Acts of 1900 and 1917, the Elective Governor Act of 1947 and the 1950-52 legislation culminating in the promulgation of the PR Constitution on July 25, 1952 is undisputably "organized".

3-I modified the population density ranking from "21st" (compared to what?) to "2nd", after New Jersey, by mistake. Puerto Rico is actually third, behind DC and NJ. Indisputably under US sovereignty, PR population density should be ranked in comparison to other US jurisdictions.

4-I modified the date of the last Population Census from "2006" to "2000". The last decennial census was in 2000, which should not be confused with less accurate population estimates or projections made by the Census Bureau on not entirely reliable Puerto Rico Planning Board data. Once again, the 2000 Census is a fact.

With respect to "Government type", it should not be mentioned as commonwealth or territory but as "republican", because that is the government structure in PR---a three-branch presidential system. Territories of different nations can have republican, parliamentary, monarchical, etc. types of governments. Commonwealths likewise can describe a parliamentary, monarchical or republican system. The best word to describe the government type in PR is "republican".

In summary, the changes I made are not the product of a particular point of view but the reflection of fact.

A revision of my contributions will reveal that I have written objectively about numerous figures in and out of Puerto Rico with different ideological leanings, always attempting to base them on facts and not any particular POV in keeping with wiki policies.

I request that any objection to my writings be substantiated at least to the same extent and with the same respect that I attempt to substantiate them in the edit summary and the discussion page and the level of respect that I always accord other wiki contributors who devote time and effort to the success of this successful attempt to expand knowledge about people, things and events we all care about.Pr4ever (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Please go to Archives, the issues you bring have been discussed already since the creation of this page, which is the result of a consensus of many years from wikipedians who have worked hard on this project.--Royptorico (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pr4ever is adding some large amounts of unnecessary information as well as some POVs. Both Joel and I have reverted these edits per WP:SS, and do not plan on letting this additions stay until consensus is reached that they are needed, which currently does not exist. --Agüeybaná (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedians:

Wake up folks. "Geography good article"? While arguing in detail a big raft of points, you're all apparently missing a drastic error/contradiction on PR's area.

The top sidebar gives an accurate figure comporting with competent sources -- ca. 3,515 sq. mi. (which BTW is a bit larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined). Yet the text gives a much higher figure of more than 5,300 sq. mi. It even compounds the error by saying that this (wrong) figure represents area smaller than Conn. (Actually, a bit bigger.) But the figure is way wrong in the first place. This is not even a case where complex geography and/or enclosed or bounded water areas can confuse such figures -- the text is simply wrong.

I often read Wiki and highly value it, but constantly see serious errors of all types, that help keep Wiki from becoming a regularly credible source. Errors obvious to even ignorant readers -- simply by naked contradiction, such as this one -- are particulary lamentable. I'd spend more time correcting/editing Wiki were I not invested in building my already book-length files of similar errors in the supposedly world-class Washington Post. But given the good value I get from Wiki generally, I think I'll learn the basics of editing and pitch in, throw some food with the whine. Meantime I'd like to see an active member, or whatever you call yourselves, respond by correcting this text.

I write this in the open. Mark Powell mwpsky@yahoo.com 69.140.0.44 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've just edited the figures in the geography section, per the CIA Factbook. The figures in the infobox seem to refer only to the land area and the inland waters, so a small discrepancy still exists. SamEV (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why is the size of Puerto Rico compared to US states such as Connecticut? Wouldn't a comparison to nearby islands make more sense? There is no reason to assume that every reader of the English articles of Wikipedia knows the general size of US states; indeed, it changes the perspective of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.154.29 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Personally I think it would make more sense to compare the main island with Hispaniola and Jamaica seeing that they are a lot more easier to compare in a geographical map, but when Joel removed it under that argument it was quickly restored back, unfortunatelly as is the case with many other issues in this page most edits are politically based. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

As HQ said above I believe that a geographical comparison with the Greater Antilles is more appropiate than with a US state. However, some people believe otherwise. A quick look in any book will reveal comparisons with the Greater Antilles. Joelito (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. A comparison with Connecticut would be appropriate if this was a text aimed solely for people from the US. Although I'm sure that the majority of the people who read this could be from the US, I don't think that's the aim or purpose of this article. --Madgirl 15 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I disagree, It is relevant to compare it to incorporated territories of the US, as it is part of it. Although it is also true that comparing it to Hispaniola and oter nearby islands can also make sense. (User is Alegrejibarito) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alegrejibarito (talk • contribs) 06:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why not both? Even tit for tat, if you like; i.e., one island for one state. Would there be any objection to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jace1 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

In an article for Primera Hora, Jesús Omar Rivera indicates that the island was named Puerto Rico by Juan Ponce de León after finding gold in the bay of San Juan. Should I wrestle that into the article's history section? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 17:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you should go for it. I wanted to find another source to back this up and did. See: http://fcit.usf.edu/Florida/lessons/de_leon/de_leon1.htm It's probably aimed at younger students but it's from a resource provided by a University so I think it's valid. --Madgirl 15 (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The second introductory paragraph seems to suggest that the name "Boriken" is indigenous, ie precolumbian. I find this highly implausible since "Boriken" sounds strikingly similar to the Spanish-given name of Puerto Rico, and more so to the Spanish demonym, Puertoriqueño. Now, I haven't checked the the Paul Allatson reference since its a paper reference, but in the Taino Dictionary reference at the bottom of the page there is this sentence: Jatibonicu Taino Tribal Nation of Boriken (Puerto Rico). This offeres no substantive information about the term "Boriken", except parenthetically that it means Puerto Rico, and might just as well be deleted. Can someone with a little knowledge shed some light on the relationship between the Taino and Spanish names of the island?MrPMonday (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Boriken is indeed a Taíno name, I'm not exactly sure why you say that it "sounds" simmilar but at least in Spanish this name is more commonly written and pronounced as "Borinquen". The use of the term is widespread and its precolumbian origin is known by most people, its popularity can be evidenced by its use in both the name and lyrics of Puerto Rico's national anthem, La Borinqueña and the common alternative for "Puerto Rican", boricua. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you pronounce Puerto Rico in a Spanish accent and elide the 'to' syllable, it becomes "Porico", which sounds more or less the same as "Boriken" especially if you destress the last syllable. I'm just saying it seems plausible to me that "Boriken" and related words are words imported from Spanish into Taino. Similar to how the English name for "Japan" derives from the Japanese word "Nippon". I think there should be a more authoritative reference to clear this up for non-experts such as myself. Maybe a quote from that book would clarify everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPMonday (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is room for discussion here. Borinken (in whichever phonetic spelling you use) was the term used by the Tainos for the Island, the same way they used Quisqueya for the island of hispaniola. This can be corroborated by asking any archeologist/historian of amerindian cultures. The fact that mispronouncing the word puerto Rico ends up sounding somehow like Borinquen means nothing. Let's not re-write history here, if you wish to go against the current, accepted (and factual from historical recollections of the time)use of Taino names, then do a PhD on it and publish it, when it is peer reviewd and accepted, then it may be considered here, don't you think? Diabulos (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Chronocentricity? Who's to say that the first Europeans didn't name "Puerto Rico" after the indigenous place name (Borinken/Borinquen), which could have sound like "Puerto Rico" to the Spanish, just as it does to us now? Apparently the indigenous word was know to them. They could have also found gold there, too, and the subsequent Europeanization of the indigenous place name would have made even more sense to them at the time.Jace1 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's a cool fact about Puerto Rico that might be possible to place somewhere in the Geography section. Puerto Rico has one of the most ideal locations for a method for generating electricity/renewable energy called Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) located at less than 2 miles from the shore of Punta Tuna in Maunabo. See Renewable Energy from the Deep Ocean. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 00:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, a single plant can produce 800 million KW in electric output, it should be mentioned in geography, we already mention the trench but there isn't much oceanic information outside of that. I remember hearing that Puerto Rico is the only place in the world where fluorescent water can be observed throughout the year but I have no idea where to find a reliable source for that. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

If by "fluorescent" water you mean bioluminescent water, it can be seen on moonless nights at Mosquito Bay in Vieques, the Punta Las Cabezas Lagoon in Fajardo and the Phosphorescent Bay in the La Parguera area of Lajas, the latter being the most polluted and less luminiescent of the three.Pr4ever (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fluorecent, bioluminicent, radioactive... they all glow, the only difference is that "bioluminicent" has a "biological" factor behind it, anyway I was thinking about "Flourecent bay" which is a term that I have heard in the past. However, the relevant aspect is that Puerto Rico may be the only place in the world where this can be observed the entire year. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

How far are we from having an FA quality for this one? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Far. Without a true culture section this will never have a chance at FAC. Also some sections need copyediting and better sources (preferably from books) are required. Joelito (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there any example of an article from some country or territory that has been featured that we can use to beef this thing up once and for all? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 01:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Australia, Belgium, Canada, Turkey, among others. Joelito (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with Joel, we need to create a culture section. As far as references go I added a few to "Geography" last week which was a section tagged with [citation needed] templates, the sports section needs some as well. Now the main problem will be keeping the article free of PNP/PIP/PPD pov, when this article is unprotected those appear on a daily basis, a "stable" version must be constructed and restored when this happens. Now, at this moment my focus is on Puerto Rican Amazon, but if all of us are available to heavily edit the article in summer perhaps we can start a FA push in July and try to have it on the main page by November 19, I have faith that if we all cooperate this can be done as was the case with Ramón Emeterio Betances last year. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know I've been pretty much out of Wikipedia these past couple of months, focusing more on the gigantic work needed in Wikisource. But if we're going for an FA drive for this article, count me in. Definitely. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, how is this normally done? I guess the idea would be to turn the to-do list into a team-workable format. Do we make a list of all the sections and have people sign up as volunteers for fixing a specific section? I've found it always a lot easier to concentrate being responsible for only one section at a time, knowing that someone else will be in charge of the rest. Also we could have a list of specific suggestions such as: Eliminate the Migration to the United States section. It would be nice to lock only a section of the article (Politics!) or clean it up so heavily that it would only contain the current government/political structure and not any news-like information. How was your plan for pushing the Ramón Emeterio Betances to FA? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I like this idea to chop it up. It also makes the whole process less stressful. Just assign me an area and I'll bring the broom! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the Culture section problem, what do you suggest? should we first create a good Culture of Puerto Rico article and then include an extract in the main Puerto Rico article or should we build on the Puerto Rico article and then drain into the specific Culture article? I have included the sections I believe should be found in a "Culture" article in Talk:Culture of Puerto Rico. With the help of the "Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña" we should be able to get somwhere. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think thats a great idea to start there. We can't very well have a "For more information see X" link without having what it links to be up to par with at least GA status. That would ease up our burden of creating something for a culture section. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I love the idea of divinding work, that would speed up the process since every user would be focusing on their part. Ramón Emeterio Betances was done in steps, Demf did a lot of research and wrote a very solid structure, but for some reason people kept failing the article for some rather minor issues, Demf stopped working on the article for some time and was notably frustrated (who wouldn't be?). I nominated the article to WP:GAC a few months later and Eddie joined, the article passed following this collaboration and was taken to WP:PR, but that was pointless so we took it to WP:FA and attended the matters there. Raising an article to featured status its about having neutral parties reviewing it, those ussually find issues that to the user working on the article might not be troubling. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Be advised that we have an excellent peer reviewer for FAs, Joelito. We should let him review it prior to FAC. It's not a guarantee that the article will then be perfect, but he has much experience with featured articles from working on FAR. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Puerto Ricans are the best type of hispanics. They rock!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.103.53 (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I question the academic validity of some of the sources utilized for this section. Further, it seems like some generalizations are made that are taking things a step too far... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.34.175 (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then be bold and fix them... or at the very least provide examples of the dubious sources and where these generalizations occur. This article will not, and I think I can write ever, be migrated to a footnote within the US main article. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 11:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

edit: ha! I read that wrong... I read the header as that this whole article should be migrated to the US article. My bad. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 11:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see this article is locked, but no information ("lock" icon, text, banner header on this Talk page) describing the nature of the lock (temporary, permanent), who controls the lock, when it is coming off, who can edit while locked, etc.

And this is especially a problem as it is not very written -- prose-wise, organization-wise -- and definitely needs some improvement.

Being the English language version of Wikipedia, it's normal to have the standard English pronunciation of a subject indicated, as well as a relevant foreign-language pronunciation.

The article currently only has a Spanish language pronunciation indicated.

As the article is locked, I am submitting this to the Wikipedia Lock Demigods for implementation:

(in U.S. English, IPA: [ˈpɔɹdʌ ˌɹikoʊ ] or [ˈpweɹtoʊ ˌɹikoʊ], in Spanish [ˌpwertoˈriko]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.153.101 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well people summer is here and we should take advantage of the ammount of free time that some of us will have. The first logic step is to assign sections to each user so we can individually improve each one, that should make the work easier since it will be parallel. Personally I prefer the "Geography" section, I have sourced and worked with this one before and would like to avoid politics as much as possible. Anyone else interested in working with a particular section? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

History for me. Joelito (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm willing to work on looking for references. --Agüeybaná 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit caught up on Wikisource, but I'll take transportation and maybe, ugh, politics. I cleared that section up months ago, without major controversy. Hopefully, I can do it this time with more references. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, our target date should be July 15, leaving us with at least half of July to work with it. I will try e-mailing Marcos and some of the inactive users on that date, unless they confirm here before. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have contacted the users that are currently working as admins in sister project's, Marcos says that he is 'half-in', his participation is probably one of the most important along Joel's. I will begin my work as part of the push tommorow, the exact same day that Puerto Ricans in World War II will be featured on the main page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

On June 9th 2008 the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization adopts text calling on United States to expedite self-determination process for Puerto Rico, it also called upon a process that would allow Puerto Ricans to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. UN official website link: [13] .--vertical (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

That may merit one sentence, or part of one in the Politics section. But definitely not in the intro. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

According to the current IPA symbols used for the Spanish language is typed, /ˈpwe̞ɾt̪o̞ ˈriko̞/. Notice the vowels "e" and "o" are mid-vowels /e̞/ and /o̞/. The spanish "t" is dental plosive /t̪/, not alveolar plosive /t/ as it indicates without the additional mark. The official Spanish name, Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, would be in IPA transcription: /e̞sˈt̪að̞o̞ ˈliβ̞ɾe̞ aso̞sjˈað̞o̞ ð̞e̞ ˈpwe̞ɾt̪o̞ ˈriko̞/ 84.120.160.88 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I started but suspended a WP:GAR at the request of User:Caribbean H.Q. and WP:PUR. However, I did start to make some comments which I have posted below:

• There are still {{fact}} tags that have not been addressed.
• Some references provided are inadequate as they only provide the URL and/or title of a work.
• The articles does not meet WP:MOS standards in the following ways:
  • Foreign words are not italicized
  • Article needs to be sufficiently wikified, complete dates are not wikilinked nor are key terms and phrases.
• Information is imprecise and does not meet Wikipedia's best work standards, for example:
  • "Later the island took the name of Puerto Rico while the capital was named San Juan." What does later mean? When the island received its name is a rather important piece of information.
  • Chronology issues: One line says that a Spanish governor took control of the island and the next it says "The Spanish soon colonized the island." 1. Surely the Spanish had already colonized the island by the time a governor was installed and 2. Relevant dates are still left out.
  • "During the late 17th and early 18th centuries colonial emphasis was on the more prosperous mainland territories, leaving the island impoverished of settlers." The island had few settlers or the settlers themselves were impoverished?

Hopefully I'll get around to making additional comments on the rest of the article. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Baseball is no longer the most popular sport in Puerto Rico. Since the recession in the local baseball league, basketball, volleyball, boxing and (recently) football/soccer are more popular now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.221.201 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A reliable source should be found either way. Kman543210 (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Clarification needed- POLITICAL STATUS:

It is important to clarify to those not accostumed the thick, almost impenetrable language regardidng the political status of Puerto Rico. Those not from Puerto Rico simply can't understand Puerto Rico's Status, and stating that it is under the plenary power of the Congress of the US, but with some local powers, etc, does not help. The goal here is not to be legally perfect, we should leave that task to lawyers. We need terms that most people of the whole world could relate to. I propose that we should add clarification to state that:

1. Puerto Rico's political status is unique in the world. 2. Much controversy as to its actual meaning exist. 2. Being under plenary powers of the US Congress, specially because there is some local (insular) power, accounts to the following: US Congress has delegated some powers to local authorities/agencies it allows to exist. Because none of these powers are constitutionally protected (as are those of a State of the Union) Puerto Rico's powers may be revoked by the US Congress.--Alegrejibarito (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The "statutory citizenship" claim below may have some merit. It is true that the US citizenship of those born in Puerto Rico is derived from a mere law (The Jones Act), and not the constitution. But it is also true that, in the opinion of many prominent constitutionalists, the US Supreme Court will undoubtedly protect these citizens. The Supreme Court will simply not permit any other branch of the government to strip current citizens of its citizenship. In this fashion, it is probably untrue that eliminating the Jones Act will in any form impact the US Citizenship of those who acquired it via this law. But, it could mean that no new citizens can be born via the act. In my opinion, the term can remain, but clarification of the implications of the nature of the origin of this citizenship should also be added.--Alegrejibarito (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not understanding the "unincorporated" argumentation below. It is a fact that PR is NOT an incorporated territory. Furthermore, Puerto Rico can not opt to become a State of the Union until it is incorporated. In fact, the US Virgin Islands are closer to Statehood than PUerto Rico, because the territory HAS been incorporated. Of course, US Virgin Islands have not been able to further develop into statehood for a very long time (they are kind of in a limbo now). Perhaps your objection is to the usage of the word "unincorporated", but even if the term is legally incorrect (something I doubt), the semantic is clear, if not necessary. Puerto Rico is a territory property of the US, but not integrated in the same way the States of the union are. Your proposition to remove the term should be ignored.--Alegrejibarito (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please, remove all wrong or inaccurate information from the article. Especially the "unincorporated territory" thing, the "statutory citizenship" myth, and others alike. Neither they have fundamental principles on US Constitution nor on official Congress documentation. It looks more like political propaganda. When reading the article the first time, I had to double check the URL address to make sure I wasn't reading a PPD brochure, praising ELA colonial status quo, or a PNP or PIP essay talking about "unincoporated territories", and "statutory citizenships".

I Also agree with SineBot when he says that soccer and basketball are more popular in Puerto Rico than baseball. Please try not to get stocked in time when composing an article...

--Portorricensis (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ahem, please read this, as with any "commonwealth" the archipelago's government has autonomy over internal affairs, hence the "unincorporated" part. Before continuing the crusade, note that there is a reason why three different users have reverted you and it doesn't have anything to do with promoting an idelogy. As a sidenote, SineBot is a bot, he doesn't comment, but the user that edited under an IP address has a point. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ahem, I've read that article (the "Unincorporated territories') before, and once again, it's full of misinformation. Even if 100 persons (related or not) revert the fixes, it doesn't mean they're right. 100 wrongs don't make one right. A real article would never include opinions or "assumptions" as a facts.

--Portorricensis (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, by asuming we are asuming something is why you keep getting reverted, we have resisted numerous political edit wars, the "unincorporated" part was ultimately taken from the CIA Factbook, no Puerto Rican source. I just noticed by clicking your sig that you seem to be adding politics in non-polital articles (particulary Cuisine of Puerto Rico) please don't go into political details in such articles, we want to avoid edit wars, we try to keep poltics out of culture, sports and arts. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing political in Cuisine of Puerto Rico's article. Everything's documented. Just show me one. Actually we're constantly reverting "addings" that seams to be propaganda; like "Puerto rico's cuisine came from Africa", or "PR's cuisine is not influenced by United State's", that "our dishes came from Ghana", etc. Not to mention when subtitles like "in mainland USA cities", etc. are in constant threat. Why? Political propaganda and agendas, my friend.

If you know they are "in constant threat" why do you add them? Try something neutral, "In New York" (reffering to cities is particulary effective to kill this issue), "In the United States", avoid words that bring trouble, avoid "mainland" or "other parts of the US" those are baits for opposing POVs. You must avoid conflicts, if politics in Puerto Rico were that simple we wouldn't have three parties in constant war and we wouldn't have political analists with different poits of views. By doing otherwise you are doing exactly the same that they are doing. Now, there articles that must attend politics, but cuisine, sports, music, etc. must never do so. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not asuming you guys are asuming... It is clear that you guys do NOT have at least one real or official reference to keep going with your "unincopporated" and "statutory" crusade. Actually whoever reads that article for the fisrts time, will think that Puerto Rico is a separated nation associated to the US. That's not true! We're actually a US territory and American born citizens. Now, that's political propaganda!

Trying to create wrong impressions or public oppinions in cases like this one, is definately not acceptable...

--Portorricensis (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The "unincorporated" part clearly came form the CIA Factbook, did you read the link? The source is used in countless countless articles. I have no idea what you guys are doing in Cuisine of Puerto Rico, I only saw this, which is just going to bring trouble. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I totally understand your point, but CIA's opinions are not necesarily based on US Congress documentation / US Constitution. Puerto Rico is under US Congress plenary powers... Not under CIA's. So the article you quote and mention is also incorrect. All these, unfortunately, is based on false primises. So my best advice is for you guys to do some revisions to them (Puerto Rico's and the "Unincorporated territories' one) based on actual facts and official documents.

Regarding the "mainland USA" mention in PR's cuisine article, there's nothing political or wrong in it. It's a fact. Unless you want other people think that having that within the article is "political propaganda", and no to have it, is not... Since Puerto Rico is (US) American soil, to say "mainland" USA to mark the difference between the island and the continent, is the most neutral thing you can say. Not neutral would be to say that PR is a US federated state or an independent republic or a separated nation in association with the USA. In any case all that is irrelevant to a cuisine article. To say that "mainland USA" is not neutral or acceptable is like saying that when talking about Isla de Mona, we cannot call Puerto Rico's big island as mainland Puerto Rico", just because Isla de Mona is not a "municipio" or county. LOL

--Portorricensis (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

a country does not have to be sovereign. i saw it somewhere about puerto rico "this COUNTRY is a colony of the united states" it is a country just not an independent one. it could be if it wanted. they get referendums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.37.212.124 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually a country could be a part of a nation. USA is a nation composed by states / countries, just like India, Spain and even Mexico.

--Portorricensis (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

--Portorricensis (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Those things are cited... where's your proof? Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 20:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Non of those quotes or citations come from any official Congress document or the US Constitution itself. They are the ONLY ones called to difine political statues and citizeship. An article that sticks to opinions from courts or who/what-ever as actual "references", isn't a trustful resource.

--Portorricensis (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just added an explicit inline reference in the article to 8 U.S.C. § 1402. That statute reads:

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Boracay, but we all know that American citizenship was EXTENDED (NOT created) by a statue. So there's not such thing as "statutory citizenship", since citizenship emanates from US Constitution and NOT from any Congress statue. A statue extends the citizenship, it does NOT create it. There's only ONE American citizenship, and it may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization. Once again: There's not such thing a "statutory citizenship". Any official US Congress document mentions that "term"; neither is mentioned on US Constitution. Once the statue extended it, citizenship cannot be revoked, since it emanates from the Federal Constitution.

The Nationality Act of 1940, applied the rule of "jure solis" (Natural born) to all persons born in Puerto Rico, with retroactivity to 1917. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 based on Article 1, Section 8 of US Constitution declared Puerto Ricans as US Nationals, American citizens by birth.

Also:

"d. Prior to January 13, 1941, there was no statutory definition of “the United States” for citizenship purposes. Thus there were varying interpretations. Guidance should be sought from the Department (Federal State Department) (CA/OCS) when such issues arise. (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf)

"o. United States means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States (Section 101(a)(38) INA)".(http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf)

Greetings!

--Portorricensis (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Portorricensis. I'm not sure where your concern with the specific term EXTENDED comes from (the article does not use that term), or what point you are trying to make here. Wikipedia is not a forum and not a soap box. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss particulars of the associated article in furtherance of improving the article. With this in mind, can you make your thoughts about changes in the article which you think are needed to improve it clearer, so that even dunderheads like myself can understand them? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Bill, please read the whole discussion srating at "Misinformation".

Take care!

--Portorricensis (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've done that, without adding to my understanding about changes in the article which you think are needed to improve it. As far as I can tell, you misunderstand the meaning of the terms unincorporated territory and statutory citizenship. I don't understand the basis for your apparent disagreement with the use of these terms in this article and in Wikipedia generally. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi agian, Boracay, if you did read starting from "Misinformation" part, I'm surprise that you were unable to read the I say ""unincorporated territory" thing, the "statutory citizenship" myth, and others alike. Neither they have fundamental principles on US Constitution nor on official Congress documentation."

Those terms should not be used in a serious article, since they are NOT true... Neither are mentioned by any official Congress document and/or the US Cosntitution.

--Portorricensis (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

In in Article 2 of the Treaty of Paris (1898), Spain ceded "Porto Rico" (now Puerto Rico) and other islands to the U.S. The island thereby became an unorganized, unincorporated U.S. territory.

Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says, in part, "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." The U.S. Congress, wielding that constitutional power, passed the Organic Act of 1900. President McKinley signed the act into law on April 2, 1900. The act established a civilian government in Puerto Rico, with a governor and an executive council appointed by the President of the United States, a legislature, a judicial system, and a non-voting Resident Commissioner in Congress. Under the Foraker Act, all Federal laws were to be enforced on the island.

In 1917 the U.S. Congress, again wielding their constitutional power, passed the Jones-Shafroth Act, which separated the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of Puerto Rican government, provided civil rights to the individual, and created a locally elected bicameral legislature, establishing the island as an organized but still unincorporated territory of the United States. The act also bestowed U.S. citizenship upon Puerto Ricans. President Woodrow Wilson signed the act into law on March 2, 1917.

In 1926, the U.S. Congress approved the United States Code, in which 8 U.S.C. § 1402 is the "codified statute" which specifies the citizenship status of persons born in Puerto Rico. The position of the U.S. Department of Justice is that this statute is source of the citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico.(see Report by the President's task force on Puerto Rico's Status (PDF), 2007, p. 4, footnote 5, appendix E {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help))

That, AFAICT, is reality, not myth. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Boracay, you may quote all articles and "positions" from de Department of Justice, etc. Non of the have the first and final word on this. There's not even one official document from the US Congress stating that Puerto Rico is a unincorporated territory. US Constitution do NOT mention "unincorporated territory" or "statutory citizenship"... Not even once. US citizenship emanates from US Constitution itself and NOT from any statue or law. US Dept. of Justice or US Congress do canNOT create a different citizenship. The ONLY source for citizenship is US Constitution.

The act signed by Wilson on 1917 conferred, (bestowed), applied or placed the already existing US citizenship (that emanates EXCLUSIVELY from US Constitution)...

BTW, the Treaty of Paris (1898) article is wrong. Even if it says that "Porto Rico" was the original name of the Island. Actually Puerto Rico is the original name (before 1898).

--Portorricensis (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to deny reality. BTW, the Treaty of Paris (1898) article does not say that "Porto Rico" was the original name of the Island (I don't know where you might have gotten that impression), but that is the spelling used in Article II of the treaty according to this, this, and numerous other sources outside of Wikipedia which quote that spelling in transcripts of the treaty text. Feel free to deny that as well. I don't think this discussion is contributing anything useful to the associated article beyond having sparked my addition of the explicit link to 8 U.S.C. § 1402 into the article. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

LOL Oh well...

Those that in fact are in denial of reality are the ones that insist that PR is an "unincorporated" territory, and that there's a "statutory" citizenship, even though there's no US Congress official documentation or a US clause stating such pathetic conclusions.

Just take a look at this:

"7 FAM 1121.4-2 Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) (TL:CON-66; 10-10-96)

a. Under the INA (effective December 24, 1952 to present), the definition of:

(1) "United States," for nationality purposes, was expanded to add Guam; and, effective November 3, 1986, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (in addition to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands of the United States). Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States..."

"7 FAM 1122 PUERTO RICO

"7 FAM 1122.1 Current Law

(TL:CON-66; 10-10-96)

a. Puerto Rico comes within the definition of "United States" given in Section 101(a)(38) INA. A person born in Puerto Rico acquires U.S. citizenship in the same way as one born in any of the 50 States."

7 FAM 1122.2-5 Effect of the Nationality Act of 1940 on persons Born in Puerto Rico

(TL:CON-66; 10-10-96)

c. Puerto Rico came within the 1940 Act's definition of "United States." Persons born there on or after January 13, 1941, acquired U.S. citizenship on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States. The current laws are quoted in 7 FAM 1122.1."

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

Greetings!

--Portorricensis (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK (I added some page number references to the above to help me find my way through that). I don't know whether that represents the official policy position of the US State Department, but it seems to be a guidance document regarding the conduct of consular affairs in US embassies abroad. I've earlier mentioned Report by the President's task force on Puerto Rico's Status (PDF), 2007, p. 4, footnote 5, appendix E {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)) (I just edited my earlier mention to add "Appendix E"), which says that it is the Justice Department's position that the source of the citizenship of those born in Pueno Rico is not the 14th Amendment, but federal statute, specifically 8 U.S.C. 5 1402. As I understand it, this goes primarily to the question of, should Puerto Rico and the U.S. agree at some point to remove U.S. Sovereignty from Puerto Rico, what effect might that have on U.S. citizenship status which was sourced from 8 U.S.C. § 1402 vs. that sourced from Section 1 of the 14th amendment. I have seen arguments to the effect that in that event, if the Congress then passed a law revoking U.S. Citizenships acquired under 8 USC 1402, and such a law was challenged, it might not be held unconstitutional.

That relates to your other concern, which you described as the "unincorporated territory" thing. Territories of the United States#Incorporated and unincorporated territories says,

An incorporated territory of the United States is a specific area under the jurisdiction of the United States, over which the United States Congress has determined that the United States Constitution is to be applied to the territory's local government and inhabitants in its entirety (e. g. citizenship, trial by jury), in the same manner as it applies to the local governments and residents of the U.S. states. Incorporated territories are considered an integral part of the United States, as opposed to being merely possessions.

As I understand it, Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory but is not an incorporated territory, and is therefore referred to as an unincorporated territory. That 2007 Report by the President's task force on Puerto Rico's Status quotes Justice White in a concurrence to Baizac v. Porto Rico as explaining that only constitutional provisions that are "of so fundamental a nature that they cannot be transgressed" apply to unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922). The 14th Amendment, then, might not be seen as applying to Puerto Rico, and I guess the thinking here is that this might provide a way around the judicial thinking in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) regarding citizenship and the 14th amendment that Congress has no right to pass a law which had the effect of depriving an American of his citizenship without his assent

"Though the framers of the Amendment were not particularly concerned with the problem of expatriation, it seems undeniable from the language they used that they wanted to put citizenship beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy."

I'm personally doubtful about that argument, but I'm not qualified to hold an informed opinion.

I may or may not take another look at the article with a view to adding some clarifications regarding the above, but this article isn't a big interest area for me and there are no doubt other editors more qualified to make such changes than I. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, Bill!

Thanks for all of the above, but once again, you keep forgetting that citizenship emanates EXCLUSIVELY from US Constitution. No statue from the Congress or elsewhere can create citizenships.

Regarding Balzac vs Porto Rico, that's an opinion from a court. Please read above when I mention a later opinion from the same court regarding the same issue. Puerto Rico's status is under US Congress, and NOT under Department of Justice or the President of the USA or a task force or any other government branch. Actually that "task force report" you mentioned, lacks of documentation and accuracy. It states "things" that are in contradiction with the actual nature of PR's status, US Constitution, and US citizenship.

The judicial opinion on Afroyim vs Rusk is quite clear about the actual nature of our citizenship. It's based on US Constitution. There's not even one clause in the US Constitution talking about "statutory" citizenships.

Puerto Rico was annexed to the USA on 1898. Since then there's not even one official Congress document stating that PR isn't incorporated... Not even one. And like I said tons of times already, the term "unincorporated" is not even mentioned on US Constitution either. I think this article (Puerto Rico) should not mention neither "inicorporated" nor "incorporated", since both are not clearly mentioned by US Congress. The correct thing would be to say "territory"... Without "lastnames". The same apllies to the "statutory" thing.

So any article stating that Puerto Rico is an "unincorporated" territory and that our citizenship is "statutory" based on opinions or "guessings", is not a trustful one.

And yeah, I can tell you "don't have any interest" in this article, yeah right! LOL

Anyways, people, PLEASEEEE, correct the article!

Take care,

--Portorricensis (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding powers of Congress, Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Territorial Clause. It states: “ The Congress shall have Powers to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States (...) ” Also, again, see the Territories of the United States article, which explains that an incorporated territory of the United States is a specific area under the jurisdiction of the United States, over which the United States Congress has determined that the United States Constitution is to be applied to the territory's local government and inhabitants in its entirety (e. g. citizenship, trial by jury), in the same manner as it applies to the local governments and residents of the U.S. states. Incorporated territories are considered an integral part of the United States, as opposed to being merely possessions. That article cites Definitions of insular area political organizations, Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, retrieved 2007-11-14 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help). That cited source contains, among others, the following definitions:

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bill, once agan: Puerto Rico's status is under US Congress, and NOT under Department of Justice or the Department of Interior or the President of the USA or a task force or any other government branch. Any definition by others than the US Congress, or US Constitution is NOT valid.

Puerto Rico was annexed to the USA on 1898. Since then there's not even one official Congress document stating that PR isn't incorporated... Not even one. And like I said tons of times already, the term "unincorporated" is not even mentioned on US Constitution either. I think this article (Puerto Rico) should not mention neither "inicorporated" nor "incorporated", since both are not clearly mentioned by US Congress. The correct thing would be to say "territory"... Without "lastnames". The same apllies to the "statutory" thing.

So any article stating that Puerto Rico is an "unincorporated" territory and that our citizenship is "statutory" based on opinions or "guessings", is not a trustful one.

Regarding citizenship, Balzac may be called as an ilegal decision, since it "defined" a subclass of "US citizenship" without constitutional basis, and under American sovereignty that could not escape an anti constitutional discriminatory status based on inequality and disenfranchisement, other than by migration to somewhere else in America, where full citizenship rights could be enjoyed. This is the same logic embodied in the federal statutory policy known as the Missouri Compromise, which divided America into two nations, one free and the other slave. Immoral and anti constitutional!

At least American citizenship by birth enabled us (Puerto Ricans) to move into the continental United States and becoming residents of any state there to enjoy every right of any citizens of the our Nation, civil, social and political.

Greetings!

--Portorricensis (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here are the five Laws about U.S. Citizenship on Puerto Rico. (At least the ones that I found at this moment). The Act of March 2, 1917 - Signed by the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, the Act (44 Stat. 1418) of March 4, 1927 signed by the U.S. President Calvin Coolidge, the (48 Stat. 1245) of June 27, 1934 and the Act of October 14, 1940 (the Nationality Act of 1940), which amended the Act of March 2, 1917, signed by the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and finally the law of June 27, 1952 signed by the U.S. President Harry S. Truman that countermanded the previous laws. The law signed by Truman is the (8 U.S.C. § 1402) that is part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and is effective from 1952 to present. This act also define the "United States" for nationality purposes, the defintion was expanded to add Guam; and, effective November 3, 1986, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (in addition to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands of the United States) and the Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States; and "Outlying possessions of the United States" was restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island.--Seablade (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico was ranked in the 41st place (out of 134 countries) in the WEF Global Competitiveness report 2008- 2009. In Latin America, Puerto Rico (41) is in second place below Chile (28). Puerto Rico slipped 5 places compared to the previous global report. Reference: WEF official website: WEF 2008-2009 Global report--vertical (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please, remove all wrong or inaccurate information from the article. Especially the "unincorporated territory" thing, the "statutory citizenship" myth, and others alike. Neither they have fundamental principles on US Constitution nor on official Congress documentation. It looks more like political propaganda. When reading the article the first time, I had to double check the URL address to make sure I wasn't reading a PPD brochure, praising ELA colonial status quo, or a PNP or PIP essay talking about "unincoporated territories", and "statutory citizenships".

--Portorricensis (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you mind keeping the argument in only one place? This is the third identical thread, with the same argument and even the same lead. I am the one that archives this talk page and these only provide redundant bytes to the archives, which are large enough as it is. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Remember what I told you? Avoid politic baits in these article.

Please, remove all wrong or inaccurate information from the article. Especially the "unincorporated territory" thing, the "statutory citizenship" myth, and others alike. Neither they have fundamental principles on US Constitution nor on official Congress documentation. It looks more like political propaganda. When reading the article the first time, I had to double check the URL address to make sure I wasn't reading a PPD brochure, praising ELA colonial status quo, or a PNP or PIP essay talking about "unincoporated territories", and "statutory citizenships".

Thx!!!

--Portorricensis (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The unincorporated territory is not wrong or inaccurate. That is the way Puerto Rico is classified whether you like it or not. So is the statutory citizenship. And they are on the US Constitution as stated above, read before you claim.Wvelez90 (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The only one that may classify Puerto Rico's status is the US Congress. And there's not even one official US Congress document stating that... Same with citizenship. Citizenship emanates from US Constitution, and NOT from any law from the Congress. Congress canNOT create citizenships.

--Portorricensis (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

While the statutory citizenship is a descriptive term, it applies and is merely a reflection of reality. Congress has the power to revoke the Jones Law, and take citizenship away, theoretically. That they would do so is another issue not relevant. With regards to whether Puerto Rico is a territory, here are links from CONGRESS where Puerto Rico is classified as a territory:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:9:./temp/~c1109v7LIn:: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:21:./temp/~c1109v7LIn::

Based on the US Constitution text: "The Congress shall have Powers to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

Following the 1898 war, Puerto Rico was ceded as a territory, and the only incorporated territories are the states and D.C., hence it is obvious that Puerto Rico IS an unincorporated territory and your claims are based on your political point of view.131.94.223.194 (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would like to add my two cents to this debate:

First, the United States Constitution makes no reference to "incorporated" or "unincorporated" territories, simply to "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States". That concept evolved from an academic debate begun in 1898 within Harvard Law School^[3] as to how to lower expectations that recently acquired territories were as entitled to admission as the Western continental territories yet to be admitted (NM, AZ, OK, etc).

Second, there was enormous racism and Filipinophobia at the time. See the Court's justification for its decision in Downes v Bidwell when it states that "It is obvious that in the annexation of outlying and distant possessions grave questions will arise from differences of race, habits, laws and customs of the people", reflecting in part views such as those expressed by Senator Bate of Tennessee when, referring to Puerto Ricans, he said "beware of those mongrels of the East, with breath of pestilence and touch of leprosy. Do not let them become part of us with their idolatry, polygamous creeds and harem habits", 33 Cong. Rec. 3616 (1900).

Third, Judge Gelpí's opinion in Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce vs Rullán notes that the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent Insular Cases pronouncement in Boumediene v Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008) made four crucial pronouncements regarding the Insular Cases. First, it made it clear that the cases referred to territories with "wholly dissimilar traditions and institutions" that Congress intended to govern only "temporarily". Second, it held that over time "the ties between the United States and any of its unincorporated territories strengthen in ways that are of constitutional significance" may lead to a second look by the court. Third, going to the crux of mr. Boumediene's claim, the Court held that fundamental Constitutional rights apply to an enemy combatant held in an unincorporated territory or property over which the US has exercised control for over a century, and fourth, it held that "Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this". While Congress and the President have the power to acquire, dispose of and govern territory, they lack "the power to decide when and where its terms apply". As the Court stated, "abstaining from questions involving forward sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another".

Fourth, following those Supreme Court pronouncements, Gelpí reexamines whether, after 110 years under the American flag, the ties between PR and the US have stengthened "in ways that are of constitutional significance", whether the US' desire to govern PR remains "temporary" and concludes that Puerto Rico has ceased to be one of the territories to which the Insular Cases apply.

This is a very interesting case, and all commentators of this issue would do well to read it (it's only a short 30 pages!) BEFORE continuing this debate. Pr4ever (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Throughout Wikipedia Puerto Rico appears with the wrong flag. Many claim that in 1995 the flag used here was officialized as such, but there is simply no evidence. I looked up and found no records of that being true. Furthermore, when you visit the official website of the government of Puerto Rico, they use the dark blue version of the flag. Given that this is the government, I believe that the flag should be changed. The current one appears to show Wikipedia in favor of one political ideology which does not appear to be true. If you do have any verifiable and trustworthy evidence that the light blue version of the flag is the official, please post it. Here is the link to several government websites with the dark blue flag: http://www.gobierno.pr/GPRPortal/Inicio/PuertoRico/Simbolos/Banderas/Bandera+de+Puerto+Rico.htm http://www.fortaleza.gobierno.pr/ Look at the pictures

Here is a link which states that in 1995, a flag with the original light blue was flown, but does not mention any proclamation of making it the official one. http://welcome.topuertorico.org/reference/flag.shtml

So far it appears that the flag must be changed unless someone can reference a verifiable source stating otherwise.

NOTE:The CIA website has a dark blue, that is not as dark as the one used by the Puerto Rico Government. Wvelez90 (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm.... Some quick googleing turned up this page (English translation here), which appears to be a government of Puerto Rico page on the subject of the Flag of Puerto Rico. It doesn't give technical details about the precise shade of blue used on the present flag, but the flag shown on that page uses a darker shade of blue than the flag image currently used with this article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Precisely, and government portraits use the dark blue version.Wvelez90 (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Puerto Rican flag flown on the floor of the Puerto Rico Senate, which is visited by tourists constantly, uses the light blue version favored by independence followers, even though its president is a statehooder. No one should automatically call the hue-of-blue issue as political. Pr4ever (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where is the reference for this???131.94.85.205 (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's actually pointed out by the tour guides when they take visitors to the Senate floor. I don't think there's any other reference, the reason why I only mention it here, not formally in an article. Perhaps Tony the Marine or one of the other users can make contact with the president directly and clear this up! Pr4ever (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, since 1995 the oficial flag of Puerto Rico changed. Now the oficial one is the sky blue variant. The Dark blue variant was ofical Since 1952 to 1994 and the governor of Puerto Rico in 1995 (a statehooder) signed a law stating that the oficial flag of Puerto Rico is the ugly sky blue variant, used once by "independentistas". What an irony! LOL

--Portorricensis (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Portorricensis where is this law? There are no records of that happening, in fact a search in the Puerto Rico Department of State archive of the Puerto Rico laws show NO records of the flag ever been official with the light blue tone. Try it for yourself: http://www.michie.com/puertorico/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp= t131.94.85.205 (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The goverment of Puerto Rico officially changed the color to sky blue in 1995 in time for its centennial anniversary. Here is the official law regarding the flag (in Spanish): http://www.lexjuris.com/Reglamentos/estado/lex955282%20bandera.htm --Jmundo (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jmundo, this is not evidenced by that law, as a matter of fact, as stated below, the blue field described in that law is both the Canton of the United States flag and the triangle of the Puerto Rico, reason for which it can be inferred that the current official flag is the one with the triangle using the sames shade of blue as the US Flag canton. Saying the light blue version is official is a common misconception when in 1995 the Government flew that version for the special occasion, but it never establish it as the official one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.223.135 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't find any info regarding the shade of blue there. The link given redirects to http://www.lexjuris.com/Reglamentos/estado/lex955282%20bandera.htm. Google language tools won't translate content at either URL but, cutting and pasting for translation, I see:

Regulations on the Use of the Puerto Rico flag of the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico

No. regulation. 5282 of August 3 1995

Based in the Department of State on August 3 1995

[...]

(F) union or blue field. " - In accordance with the Rules of the flag of the United States of America, the rectangle in the upper left of the flag of the United States of America, which included the stars representing the Federated States of the Union American, and the blue equilateral triangle with a five-pointed star in the center appears on the far left of the flag of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

[....]

Perhaps the inference can be taken from "In accordance with the Rules of the flag of the United States ..." in (F) above that the shade of blue used in the US flag is specified by that 1995 regulation as the shade of blue to be used in the PR flag (??). The colors specified in Flag of the United States#Specifications are

Color	Cable color	Pantone	Web Color	RGB Values
Dark Red	70180	193 C	#BF0A30	(191,10,48)
White	70001	Safe	#FFFFFF	(255,255,255)
Navy Blue	70075	281 C	#002868	(0,40,104)

(Note: I looked at the Flag of Puerto Rico article, and couldn't resolve this from sources cited there either. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The content translated above is under article 2 called "Definitions". This section defines the vocabulary used within the text of the law. Section 3, "Description and symbolism", indicates that: "The flag of the Commonwealth is the one that traditionally has been known until now as the Puerto Rican flag."

The site of the Assistant Secretary of Protocol of the P.R Department of State, says that "The flag that the Legislature adopted in 1952 as the official emblem of Puerto Rico is an old flag designed by a group of patriots in 1895" and the website of the governor indicates that "in 1952 our Legislature declared official flag of Puerto Rico the one devised by the "Junta Puertorriqueña de Nueva York". I can't find any law or official statement that clearly indicates that the blue in the flag is the one similar to the U.S flag. --Jmundo (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is also no official statement saying the light blue is the official one. Furthermore, on those same links the flag used is the one with the dark blue triangle, and given that there is no official declaration, I say we use the one the government uses currently, which is the dark blue version.131.94.223.135 (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I say, let's vote.

• Dark Blue- The current Government of Puerto Rico has that flag displayed as can be seen in all the links previously provided, and there is no official statement on the tone, so I think it is appropriate to use what the Government uses.Wvelez90 (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Primary Sources of the Flag of Puerto Rico

• Act No.1, Approved July 24, 1952.
• Speech by Governor Luis Muñoz Marín. Foundation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. July 25, 1952. (Spanish)
• Regulations on the Use of the Puerto Rico flag. Núm. 5282, August 3, 1995. (Spanish)

Nowhere indicates that the color of the flag is dark blue or sky blue. I think it is appropriate to use the original design of 1895.--Jmundo (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why use a flag the government does not use?131.94.223.135 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

For your edit to this article! Very accurate. It needs way more "cleanings", but I'm confident that little by little it'll be done. :)

This political party has been created to bring a change to Puerto Rico. Its plan of action revolves around making Puerto Rico independent from other countries and connecting every major metropolis in the island. Its current party leader is Rogelio Figueroa. It has no current status affiliation which makes it able to adopt any status depending on how the economy is going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafar2011 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interesting "declaration" made by Federal Judge Gelpi this week...

--Portorricensis (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Correction, Puerto Rico is unincorporated. See US Supreme Court rulings (Insular Cases) Balzac vs Puerto Rico 258, US 298 1922. This has not been overruled by the US Supreme Court. reference: 258,us 298 (1922)--vertical (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect! See discussion above on this page. Supreme Court has expressed several opinions regarding Puerto Rico' status. But US Congress is THE ONLY ONE called to define this, since Puerto Rico's status is under its plenary power. There's not even one official US Congress document stating that Puerto Rico is an UN-incorporated territory. Not even one!

--Portorricensis (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see my two cents worth in duscussion further up this page. Pr4ever (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The U.S Supreme Court defines the status of Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory until the U.S Congress explicitly says otherwise (See insular cases). Portorricensis are you saying that the Supreme Court's rulings don't have any legal standing?--Jmundo (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes. What I'm saying s that Supreme Court canNOT define Puerto Rico status. US Congress is THE ONLY ONE called to define this, since Puerto Rico's status is under its plenary power. There's not even one official US Congress document stating that Puerto Rico is an UN-incorporated territory. Not even one! Did you get it? Hello!

--Portorricensis (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re "See insular cases": e.g., "Territories were only due the full protections of the Constitution when the U.S. Congress had incorporated them as an "integral part" of the United States." in Downes v. Bidwell#Decision and "The concept of territorial incorporation is that the United States can be proprietor of a territory without having actually incorporated the territory into the United States. These unincorporated territories are not due the full benefits of the U.S. Constitution, ..." in Downes v. Bidwell#Consequences and e.g. "The inquiry is stated to be: 'Had Porto Rico, at the time of the passage of the act in question, been incorporated into and become an integral part of the United States?' And the answer being given that it had not, it is held that the rule of uniformity was not applicable." in DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Once again: US Congress is THE ONLY ONE called to define this, since Puerto Rico's status is under its plenary power. There's not even one official US Congress document stating that Puerto Rico is an UN-incorporated territory. Not even one!

--Portorricensis (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Portorricensis, stop deleting the word incorporated from the article. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions. The consensus in the Wikipedia articles, and the reliable sources is that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory:

• Article: Territories of the United States
• Article: Insular cases
• Supreme Court rulings: Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S; People of Puerto Rico v. Shell Co., 302 U.S. 253 (1937); United States v. Standard Oil Company, 404 U.S. 558 (1972) , DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901), Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 , etc, etc.
• The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal By Juan R. Torruella.Published by Editorial UPR, 1985

ISBN 0847730190

• You said that "US Congress is THE ONLY ONE called to define this, since Puerto Rico's status is under its plenary power", but Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the U.S Supreme Court:

• Wikepidea's Verifiability policy says that

--Jmundo (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're right. Wikipedia isn't a place for for personal opinions, So, "unincorporated" should be deleted, since US Congress has NOT defined Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory. It should remain as simply "territory"... Neither "un-incorporated" nor "incorporated.

Stop quoting other Wikipedia articles that are based on non existent facts or on court opinions. Puerto Rico status belongs EXCLUSIVELY to US Congress.

Cheers,

--Portorricensis (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please cite the reliable supporting source which points out the specific legal instrument by which the U.S. Congress took action to incorporate (in the sense of that term relating to the difference between territories which have and have not been "incorporated" into the U.S. and territories which have not been "incorporated" into the U.S.) U.S. territories which have not been "incorporated" are referred to as "unincorporated territories" (i.e., Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Bajo Nuevo Bank, Serranilla Bank, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, and Wake Atoll).

Presently, as I understand it, Palmyra Atoll is the only incorporated territory of the U.S. "Incorporated" as used here means that Palmyra Atoll is subject to all provisions contained in the United States Constitution and is permanently under U.S. sovereignty. As I understand it, the Territory of Hawaii, which at the time included Palmyra atoll, became an incorporated territory of the U.S. with the passage of The Hawaii ORGANIC ACT to Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawaii (Act of April 30, 1900, C 339, 31 Stat 141) which provided, among other things, that "... That the Constitution, and, except as otherwise provided, all the laws of the United States, including laws carrying general appropriations, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States; ...", and was separated from the rest of the incorporated territory of Hawaii when Hawaii became a U.S. State with the passage of THE ADMISSION ACT. An Act to Provide for the Admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, March 18, 1959, Pub L 86-3, 73 Stat 4, "... The State of Hawaii shall consist of all the islands, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters, included in the Territory of Hawaii on the date of enactment of this Act, except the atoll known as Palmyra Island, together with its appurtenant reefs and territorial waters, but said State shall not be deemed to include the Midway Islands, Johnston Island, Sand Island (off-shore from Johnston Island), or Kingman Reef, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters. ...".

As I understand it, there is no Organic Act for the territory of Puerto rico which provides that that the U.S. Constitution, and, except as otherwise provided, all the laws of the United States, including laws carrying general appropriations, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within Puerto Rico as elsewhere in the United States and, lacking such an act incorporating Puerto Rico into the United States, Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

While I agree that the Wikipedia consensus is that Puerto Rico is, as stated in the century old cases decided by the same justices that declared that segregation was constitutional, an "unincorporated" territory (the US constitution does not use the words "incorporated" or "unincorporated" anywhere!), this consensus has probably been reached without reading the most recent Federal court pronouncement on the issue, Judge Gustavo Gelpí's opinion, which intriguingly concludes in part with the following:

" The Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution. Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories — only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one. Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees. To hold otherwise, would amount to the court blindfolding itself to continue permitting Congress per secula seculorum to switch on and off the Constitution. Boudemiene at 2259. "

I have not found a freely accessible source to the decision, but once everyone has had a chance to read the case, it would be appropriate to revisit this issue. Pr4ever (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Judge Gelpi opinions can't overide the rulings of the Supreme Court. Although is true that the constitution does not use the words "incorporated" or "unincorporated", the Supreme Court has constitutional power over all cases in law. --Jmundo (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you, and Judge Gelpí too! As he says: "The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories — only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one.". Once again, this a new case, the full reading of which should precede any revisiting of the inc/unic issue. Pr4ever (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This talk page popped up on my watchlist again today, and I'm prompted to wonder what the perception of WP editors continuing blogish discussions about this here is about the difference incorporated territory vs. unincorporated territory status for P.R. would make. A few points come immediately to mind for me: (1) it wouldn't affect voting rights (or lack thereof) for P.R. residents in any way; (2) it would permanently foreclose any option for P.R. to separate itself from the U.S. and become independent; (3) some aspects of the current P.R. constitution and laws might be preempted by the U.S. constitution (The U.S. Congress currently has the plenary power to (or not to) preempt the constitution or laws of P.R. on a case-by-case basis. Incorporated status would force preemption of whatever might conflict with the U.S. constitution). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mi gente, I think we reach a consensus. This edit of SamEV is good for me: "is a self-governing territory (an unincorporated territory, per some sources)". Is my strong opinion that the Supreme Court has make it clear about unincorporation, but I can live with this edit.--Jmundo (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I, too, can live with that language---not perfect, but factually correct and leaving space for different points of view. Pr4ever (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry I come late into the discussion, but I cannot live with that language, consensus or no consensus. As usual with the entire WikiProject Puerto Rico, and much to my continued chagrin, we insist on doing original research, creating our own synthesis, ignoring the need for verifiability, and ignoring the definitions for what are reliable sources. To put a cherry on top (o mejor dicho, pa' no dejar de joder) we all continue to insist on ignoring weasel words and due weight neutrality considerations.

Mi gente: This is not a soapbox, bajense de la tribuna. This is not not a blog either.

Our continued disregard for policy has had serious effects for the project in AfDs, deletion reviews, and FA/GA reviews in the past, and I fear continued POV bickering (and I am as convinced in my political beliefs as any other follower of the Puerto Rican National Sport that is politics) will lead to the demotion of this page, and continued deterioration of the WikiProject PR's quality.

That said, in this entire debate everyone brings opinions and interpretations that either lack sources, or use primary sources to develop novel, non-verifiable synthesis. Some are closer to the truth than others (ie PR citizens are full-blown can-become-President citizens - as per Nationality acts and SCOTUS decisions upholding them), some are patently false (final authority rest on congress: final authority on constitutional matters rest on the SCOTUS, not Congress). But none of them should be included unless sourced by secondary reliable sources and verified by primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

Clearly, a canonical secondary reliable source on the topic would be a product of an Agency of the United States Government. We have such a source in the CIA fact book, an Official US Government Publication considered a reliable source. It states:

Dependency Status: unincorporated, organized territory of the US with commonwealth status; policy relations between Puerto Rico and the US conducted under the jurisdiction of the Office of the President

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

That is, this is not a matter open to interpretation: Puerto Rico is unincorporated. With such a powerful source, we are left with exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. Under "due weight" considerations, the burden of proof rest on those who advocate something different than what can be verified by reliable sources, not those with the highest level of evidence.

Consensus doesn't mean "compromise" (although it can be a compromise under certain circumstances), consensus means that we reach a stable form of the article after careful consideration and discussion based on common sense, encyclopedic value, and backed by policy. Trying to reach a consensus that gives equal weight to a verified fact and to a verifed opinion, is not in accordance to policy, and not open to consensus.

What I do know is that it is the opinion of some that Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory, and they have tried to sue in the courts for recognition of this, so far not reaching SCOTUS, who would have to overrule itself. So a mention of the controversy, and inclusion of lengthier encyclopedic content in Political status of Puerto Rico or other such sub-article might be a possible consensus.

But that a fact is disputed, and that we most cover this dispute doesn't mean we should stop publishing this fact, granted as a disputed fact, but one that until further notice is the De jure and De facto relationship as per verifiable, reliable sources presented in a neutral fashion.

In that case, the parenthetical "in some sources" is a break of all content policies of wikipedia, and as such to be strongly opposed.

In that case, I suggest we use the language in the CIA Fact book "unincorporated, organized territory of the US with commonwealth status" adding a line saying A Federal Judge has ruled that this relationship has evolved to one of an incorporated territory while deferring to the authority of the Supreme Court of the US in its currently valid opinion that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory under a commonwealth.

Of course we must source everything. Thing is we either do this or we will continue to fail in our efforts. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 U.S.C. § 1402), Alaska (8 U.S.C. § 1404), Hawaii (8 U.S.C. § 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 U.S.C. § 1406), and Guam (8 U.S.C. § 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President Harry S. Truman (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

U.S. Constitution Online

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 U.S.C. § 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

U.S. Nationals

A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

Becoming a citizen

A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization, generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good moral character. (Seablade (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC))Reply

8 U.S.C. § 1401 - 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - 8 U.S.C. § 1404 - 8 U.S.C. § 1405 - 8 U.S.C. § 1406 - 8 U.S.C. § 1407 - 8 U.S.C. § 1403 -

(Seablade (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC))Reply

Great! Excellent, Seablade!!!

--Portorricensis (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Design of Puerto Rico quarter at issue - Numismatic News Sep 15

With a choice of two designs, there is an attempt in Puerto Rico to make a third choice for its territorial quarter.

With literally days to go before its 2009 territorial quarter design has to be finalized to go before the Commission of Fine Arts and the Citizens Coin Advisory Committee, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is making a bold move to have the famous Arecibo Observatory as the distinguishing feature on the coin’s design.

http://www.coincollectingnews.org/design-of-puerto-rico-quarter-at-issue-numismatic-news/10698

Design of Puerto Rico at issue September 15, 2008 by By David L. Ganz

With a choice of two designs, there is an attempt in Puerto Rico to make a third choice for its territorial quarter.

With literally days to go before its 2009 territorial quarter design has to be finalized to go before the Commission of Fine Arts and the Citizens Coin Advisory Committee, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is making a bold move to have the famous Arecibo Observatory as the distinguishing feature on the coin’s design.

It was not originally an option.

About 200 days from now, the new Puerto Rican coin of whatever design will go into production, and then into circulation following the Hawaii state quarter that concludes the 50-state series, which has been in continuous production since 1999. Designs on the quarter’s reverse have changed every 10 weeks for 10 years.

In 2007, Congress altered the formula and made good a promise to add the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and four other insular territories: Guam, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Puerto Rico conducted a concept selection process that provided two different concepts. The U.S. Mint produced two original candidate designs for each concept, focusing on aesthetic beauty, historical accuracy, appropriateness and coinability.

The quarter from Puerto Rico has two designs, each of which uses a Spanish phrase. For the first, “Palacio de Santa Catalina,” the fortress that serves as the governor’s residence, is depicted. It is Puerto Rico’s most important as the oldest government building in continuous use in the Americas, dating to 1533.

The second design bears the phrase “Isla del Encanto” (the enchanted island), and shows a fortress parapet and Puerto Rico’s national flower, the flor de maga. The maga is closely related to hibiscus but unlike the common hibiscus, the maga is a tree.

The commission recommended alternative No. 2, commenting that “the sentry box from the fortifications of old San Juan provides the more simple and legible composition for a coin design and as a representation of the island’s history.”

With the two competing visions, the government of the island took matters into its own hands. The Senate of Puerto Rico approved a resolution on June 30 urging the U.S. Mint to select an image of the Arecibo Observatory for Puerto Rico’s commemorative quarter.

Support was widespread. The final design, whatever it is, should be public shortly.

http://dev.numismaticnews.net/article/Design_of_Puerto_Rico_at_issue/

--Seablade (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

What Puerto Rico quarter design alternative do you prefer that the U.S. Mint choose? Alternative 1, Alternative 2 or Alternative 3?--Seablade (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alternative 3, the Arecibo Observatory, which has widespread support in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico did NOT develop a "concept selection process". The first two designs came out of the blue with no prior public reach-out in Puerto Rico. The third alternative was unanimously supported by the Senate of Puerto Rico (and its rare that its members ever agree on anything!). But at this late stage of the game, I guess that, literally, the die is cast. Pr4ever (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congressman Serrano announced the selected design on December 15, 2008.^[4]

Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. Currently Puerto Rico is an “unincorporated territory” of the United States which according to the U.S. Supreme Court's Insular Cases is “a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States.”^[5] Puerto Rico is subject to the Congress’ plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution.^[6] US federal law applies to Puerto Rico, even though Puerto Rico is not a state of the American Union and has no voting representative in the U.S. Congress. Due to the establishment of the Federal Relations Act of 1950, all federal laws that are “not locally inapplicable” are automatically the law of the land in Puerto Rico.^[7] In general terms, Puerto Rico's current political/legal status derives from an express delegation of US Congress powers to a local (internal) government. Because these powers are not protected by the US constitution (as are those of the admitted States of the Union), they may be revoked.--Alegrejibarito (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have a problem with the sourcing, which is all from primary sources that provide no third-party narrative or analysis, in addition to no verifiability. While this is borderline WP:SYNTH, I am willing to overlook the objections if it becomes consensus. The issues is when our FA status gets revised, are we able to survive with primary sourcing? Or if it proves a controversial interpretation/synthesis? I worry... but great effort! Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately for us, this article is still a GA. And a shaky one at that, mostly due to all the kinds of stuff that find the way in when no one is watching and stay there for months, like they say, Cuando el gato no está, los ratones hacen fiesta. The first role call to push this to FA failed, I know that Marcos is busy, but outside of that I have no idea why everyone besides Joel apparently lost interest out of a sudden. I would love to see another effort, but don't think that sending confirmation e-mails will be my job this time. As sad as it seems, we might have a better chance calling people specialized in country articles instead of hoping that all the boricua users will assemble to do it. Though I don't blame them, every Puerto Rican user surely knows how annoying keeping the political POV out of here during the process will be. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please, remove all wrong or inaccurate information from the article. Especially the "unincorporated territory" thing, the "statutory citizenship" myth, and others alike. Neither they have fundamental principles on US Constitution nor on official Congress documentation. It looks more like political propaganda. When reading the article the first time, I had to double check the URL address to make sure I wasn't reading a PPD brochure, praising ELA colonial status quo, or a PNP or PIP essay talking about "unincoporated territories", and "statutory citizenships".

--Portorricensis (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you have been living under a rock for 50 years. Congress has officially called, us, at last, an "unincorporated territory". ---- Me, July 18 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.157.66 (talk)

"Portorricensis" you do not know were you live. Well, like it or not you live in an "unincorporated territory" of the United States and you know you will not find any serious reference indicating otherwise. Now, with respect to propaganda, I was reading the history section of this article and it seems to me that I was reading the Independence movement. i make this point because (in the history section) only figures in favor of independence are mention. I am not against of mentioning them. I am against, however, of ignoring other political figures (in the history section) that actually represents the majority nowadays. My only concern with this article is the History section. PLEASE SOMEONE WITH AN UNBIASED MIND FIX THIS, FOR THE BETTERMENT OF WIKIPEDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.204.54 (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is it that there are over 4 sentences covering Jews in Puerto Rico when they make up less than 1% of the population? --67.80.174.252 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Hebrew Spanish or Jewish population of Puerto Rico is very part of our history and cultural heritage. They have been one of the few immigrants since the early days of the Spanish colonization that were friendly to the native communities of Arawak (Tainos). They came searching for refuge from the inquisition together with Bereberes, Mozarabes, Muslims, Gypsies and others. Over 40% of the people of Puerto Rico are descendants of the maranos (from hebrew maran, conversion) Jews who converted to Catholics, by force or by choice, in the Middle Ages. Even our regional form of castellano reflects the ladino dialect (Judeo-Spanish) of the 15th century. Together with them the Arabic Islamic people have contributed to our language over 5,000 words. Puerto Rico (Boriken) is one of the few places around the world where you can find Hebrew (Jews) people and Arabs living and working together and even families with both Mozarabe and Sefardi Jewish names. It is an interesting speculation that probably the name Boriken comes from either the Arabic or Hebrew language or an ancient Babylonian word. In Hebrew and Arabic the root of "blessed" (bendito) is BRK ברך بُرق. Does any particular ethnic group needs to be over 1% to be included in the history of a nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFrantzPeretz (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

FYI, the word marano does not come from the Hebrew word for conversion. It comes from one of the Spanish words for pig. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

DrFrantz, please provide citations to support your fantastic claim that almost half of Puerto Ricans ("over 40%" as you call it) "are descendants of...Jews". This is quite interesting and if proven true, we should waste no time letting everyone know about this, don't you think? Mercy11 (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads-up that according to Checklinks, this article references several URLs that are dead or have connection issues. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I have replaced the majority of dead URLs with new references. I can't find a replacement source for the information about the lakes "Puerto Rico has 17 lakes, all man-made" and the genetics section, "a study done on Puerto Rican women born on the island but living in NY in 2004." --J.Mundo (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the following statement should be removed (or relocated) since it is about an ecclesiastical leader when the section is about government and politics: "The Holy See has designated the Papal Nuncio in the Dominican Republic as the ecclesiastical liaison to the Roman Catholic Church in Puerto Rico." --Eustress (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Holy See is "recognized by other subjects of international law as a sovereign entity" and "maintains diplomatic relations with states and participates in international organizations." --J.Mundo (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Need to update the reason that in Puerto Rico had more Protestant Churches than Catholics. The Protestant Churches grown since 1930's because the Big Depression in USA. There are more Protestant assisting in Churches than Catholics in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is the only country in the Spanish speaker that Catholic religion is not the predominant. Pentecostal Churches, Disciples of Christ, Baptist and Mission Boards is some of the protestant churches around the Island. Any questions, make a serious survey and it talk alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.221.18 (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Roman Catholic church is the predominant religion in Puerto Rico (85% of the population is Roman Catholic), although protestant religion is growing, it is growing at the same percentage as the rest of Latin America and it is not the main church in Puerto Rico (less than 15%). Reference: see the CIA factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html --66.50.182.198 (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

English influence on the spanish language. It's said in the article that spanish has its own idiosincrasy in Puerto Rico. But this is more a subjetive point of view, english is influencing almost every language in the globe, spanish is taking many english words not only in Puerto Rico, the work 'parking' is not only used in the island but also in Spain substituting "estacionamiento', in fact the spanish in Puerto Rico is very close to the spanish in Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.5.92.211 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think this is important enough to be mentioned on the 1st paragraph. Agreed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

When the 1st World War, the Islander haven't granted, the US give them for military purposes. It not a grace or right, it call a "necessity" for put Puertorricans in the battle front to do the "dirty job" then US official said we won! That's easy! See Korea and Vietnam issues and how Puertorricans was a need for "necessity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.221.18 (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This citizenship was imposed on Puerto Ricans by the US colonial government (US colonial regime lasted from 1898 until 1952) in Puerto Rico, it was not granted (a favor, request or privilege). Puerto Ricans in government at that time refused this citizenship because it was considered a second class citizenship (mostly those favoring annexation) or/and a foreign citizenship that would displaced their national citizenship (mostly those favoring autonomy or independence). There are many books and research papers on this subject (specially at the university of puerto rico located in rio piedras). --66.50.182.198 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, note Article IX of the Treaty of Paris (1898):

Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside.

The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain; December 10, 1898 , Avalon project, Yale Law School]

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

8 U.S.C. § 1402

48 U.S.C. § 737

Title 48 of the United States Code - Chapter 4 - Puerto Rico

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode48/usc_sup_01_48_10_4.html --Seablade (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Right. Perhaps when anon 66.50.182.198 said "at that time", (s)he was speaking of the time of enactment of those provisions of the US Code (March 2, 1917, as I understand in; in the Jones-Shafroth Act). As I understand it, the option of refusing US citizenship was not open to them. At the time following the 1898 signing of the Treaty of Paris, though, they (or their forebears) had the option of preserving Spanish citizenship. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory of the United States

whose residents have been United States citizens since 1917 and have fought valorously in five wars in the defense of our Nation and the liberty of others. On July 25, 1952, as a consequence of steps taken by both the United States Government and the people of Puerto Rico voting in a referendum, a new constitution was promulgated establishing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth structure provides for self-government in respect of internal affairs and administration, subject to relevant portions of the Constitution and the laws of the United States. As long as Puerto Rico is a territory, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained periodically by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored either by the United States Government or the Legislature of Puerto Rico.

[14]

Should we say "Puerto Rico is an internally self-governing territory of the United States...."? Prietodog (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would be factually correct. Pr4ever (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

We can say also that it is a non-sovereign nation or a nation under a colonial relationship with the US that is self governing but not sovereign. The United Nations Decolonization Committee has several resolutions, the last one in 2008 calls the US to expedite self -determination and independence process, an inalienable right, for Puerto Rican people. UN Decolonization committee 2008 resolution --Camilpr1 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is debatable whether politically Puerto Rico is a nation, and it is certainly not fully-self governing. The United States and a majority of Puerto Ricans do not necessarily accept the contents of several resolutions by a committee of the UN (not even a Security Council, much less a General Assembly resolution), including the 2008 one. Pr4ever (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

nationhood is a sociological term (people who share common customs, origins, history, and language and live in a defined territory occupied by such a group of people), not a political one (a country can be a nation without being politically independent, when it becomes independent then it is called ,in political science, a Nation-State. Jamaica was not independent until 1962 but nobody questions that it was not a nation (people who share common customs, origins, history, and language and live in a defined territory occupied by such a group of people) before it's independence, it simply was a Non-Sovereign Nation much like Ireland, India and a great number of countries that were under a colonial regime. Today, Puerto Rico belongs to the group of Non-Sovereign Nations, a group that has become smaller since the 1950's. This is more evident in the sports world, since Puerto Rico has it's own national team [15] . --66.50.154.158 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Only non-puertorricans question we are not a nation. Of course we are...not even scholars that come here to study us deny that. So all you are saying is pure rhetoric. Also, since you are saying we are a "non-sovereign nation"...that implies we are a nation. Just like Jamaica was a nation, we are as well. And that is not debatable whatsoever. Just because we have anglicisms like saying "parking" instead of "estacionamiento" doesn't mean anything ---- Me July 18 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.157.66 (talk)

Democratic Party 2000 Platform

Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but the island’s ultimate status still has not been determined and its 3.9 million residents still do not have voting representation in their national government. These disenfranchised citizens – who have contributed greatly to our country in war and peace – are entitled to the permanent and fully democratic status of their choice. Democrats will continue to work in the White House and Congress to clarify the options and enable them to chose and to obtain such a status from among all realistic options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seablade (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is the viewpoint of those who favor Puerto Rico to become a US-state (ignore the establishment of the Estado Libre Asociado in 1952 and Puerto Rican nationality). Those who do not favor Puerto Rico to be a US-state (those who favor the current association or the independence option) do not see the US as their national government, see the US as a partner in an association, an association that began in 1952 with the creation of the Estado Libre Asociado (Associated Free State). Those favoring the current status do not favor a colonial or territorial status as an option, this was clearly established with former Governor's Acevedo Vila historic speech at the United Nations. [16]. --72.50.121.43 (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is an encyclopedia, this is not about point of views, this is about facts. Do you like it or not, is other issue. The facts are clear. For example this the official position of the Republican Party on the Party platform approved by the 2008 Republican National Convention delegates of all the U.S. that took place at the Xcel Energy Center in Saint Paul, Minnesota, from September 1, through September 4, 2008.

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.

This is the source: http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf

These are facts not viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seablade (talk • contribs) 04:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The UN Decolonization committee approved a resolution on Puerto Rico (June 15th 2009). The resolution approves text calling on US to expedite self determination process for Puerto Rico, process that would allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. UN official document: [17] --vertical (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've added that info to the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Puerto Rico/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. The main issues are below.

1. The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines. Try and touch on each topic in the article.
2. There are several "citation needed" tags throughout the article that need to be addressed. The tags have been there since 2007 & 2008!
3. "The first comprehensive book on the history of Puerto Rico was written by Fray Iñigo Abbad y Lasierra in 1786, 293 years after the first Spaniards arrived on the island.[6] hedhee9" This looks like vandalism at the end of the sentence. Restore any deleted content.
4. Portions of "United States colony", "Government and politics", "Within the United States", "Population and racial makeup", and "Culture" are unsourced. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc.
5. "Only the "fundamental rights" under the federal constitution apply to Puerto Rico like the Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause..." The bold font is not needed here.
6. The inline citations need to go directly after the punctuation throughout the article. Fix all occurrences.
7. Throughout the article there are several single sentences. To improve the flow of the article, either expand on these or incorporate them into another paragraph.
8. The article has multiple dead links. The Internet Archive can assist in fixing them.
9. Many of the citations only have a title. The sources should include the author, date, publisher, access date, etc. Consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET to simplify the formatting.
10. This isn't required for GA, but there are multiple free images in the article that should be moved to Wikimedia Commons. This will allow the other language Wikipedias to use the images for their articles.

Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this assessment, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you need clarification or assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Those genetics are pretty wrong, especially when it comes to the african and european thing, someone might have mixed them up with the ones for the dominican republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.117.27 (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

48 U.S.C. § 737

Did you tell that to the FBI agents that still harras Purto Rican in the island? What rights y ocho cuarto, we are a colony, citizems of second class, ask the Viquense. --J.Mundo (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Heading "Genetics" has the figures 98%, etc. They only add up if you assume that there is an error of about 2% or 3% in 98%, 87% and 84%. Similar errors are given for 53.3%, etc.

I change some images, helps links more articles. For example I think that Rafael Cordero is more representative than rice and beans in the culture section. Of course, the magic of Wiki is that you can revert me, but maybe we can talk about it first. thanks, --J.Mundo (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

While many Puerto Ricans generally believe that Puerto Rico has a distinct national identity, many Puerto Ricans, including those belonging to the ruling majority party, including four of the past 7 governors, don't. This issue has been the subject of multiple public debates in Puerto Rico that continue today. The "unequivocal national identity" phrase appearing in the introduction is a quote properly sourced from a UN Committee report. The Special Committee's report is not endorsed by the United States government, just like an official recent US District Court opinion concluding that Puerto Rico is an "incorporated" territory (rather than the generally accepted "unincorporated" territory) is also not endorsed by the United States government. I have amended the sentence to clarify that the quote is what that UN Special Committee has concluded, and not necessarily a hard, absolute, unqualified fact. Pr4ever (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted this edit. I also blocked User:Portoricensis for sockpuppetry, as that user was a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user User:Portorricensis (for details, see User_talk:Portoricensis). Though I have been involved in prior editing disagreements and reversions with this user, I don't think that my blocking him for sockpuppetry was tainted by conflict of interest. If anyone feels that I've abused my administrative powers here, feel free to discuss it with me on my talk page or to report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth republic and Barack Obama is not the President of PR. We are US citizens but the highest elected official is the Governor of PR. Puertoricans can not vote for any US Senator or US Representatives candidates on any election. They can only vote in the primaries for President of th US, both parties Democrats or Republicans. Only active members any of the two parties can vote in the primaries for President of US. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.247.242 (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not according to the US gov't. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Correction "Chief of State" is the term used, not President of PR. Thanks

The definition of Unincorporated Territory does not exist before 1922. Before 1922 only exist States and Territories. How this article could indicate that Puerto Rico was considered an unincorporated territory in the year 1900, if the definition does not exist until 1922?

Reference: In Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), the Supreme Court delineated what should and should not be considered in determining whether a territory is "incorporated" into the Union. Simply put, the Court resolved that "incorporation is not to be assumed without express declaration, or an implication so strong as to exclude any other view." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.65.236 (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Removed a large chuck of text that started off "Providences of Puerto Rico" and followed by a listing of municipalities. It made no sense under the Sports section. If anyone thinks it should be in that section and can provide a rationale, please say so. I am even doubtful it belonged ANYWHERE at all since such listing was already available elsewhere in the article. Mercy11 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seems on Sept 22 a user called Adrian51 changed the color of the flag of Puerto Rico in this article. Was there was consensus on this matter? Just asking. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

That I can see, it was not discussed to a consensus towards chaging it the dark blue color that's there now. The user changed it w/o any explanation or comment, unlike the other changes that user made.

Lacking a discussion and consensus, it should be changed back to a more middle-of-the road blue. Some misinformed independentistas want it very light blue. Some misinformed statehooders want it Star-Spangled banner dark blue but the Rosselló and Fortuño administrations normally use a middle-blue that respects everyone's opinion.Pr4ever (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've added a clarifying footnote which might be useful, whichever color is used in this article. Feel free to modify or remove the footnote if what I've done here is unhelpful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I changed the file according to the consensus found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Puerto_Rico#Que_bonita_bandera.... --Jmundo (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

the climate of Puerto Rico is mainly TROPICAL. the average climate is near 80 degrees farenheight in lower elevations and 70 degrees farenheight in the mountains of Puerto Rico. the rainy season stretches from April into November. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.27.203 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I reinserted the reference to the annual commemoration of the arrival of US troops on July 25, 1898 in reference to the date chosen by Gov. Muñoz Marín chose to promulgate a Constitution that had been approved over 3 weeks before. A political genius, he used his sleight-of-hand to replace a holiday he did not like with a future "Constitution Day" holiday he would. Were it not his intention to replace one July 25 commemoration with another, it would have been more logical for him to promulgate it on July 17, his father's birthday, perhaps in Barranquitas, as the crowning achievement of Muñoz Rivera's political quest. Had he done that, naturally, we'd be celebrating "Constitution Day", not "Muñoz Rivera Day", on July 17. I have expressed the reference in a non-POV language that makes no reference to the widely discussed motivations he had in postponing the promulgation until that date. Dissenting views are welcome in this discussion. Pr4ever (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Currently, the article includes the subtitle "United States Colony" for the 1898-1952 history and "Commonwealth" for the past 7/25/52 history. Such subtitles suggest that there was an end to the colonial relationship, and an ensuing change in status in 1952, something that a majority of Puerto Ricans (statehooders, independentistas and some PDP members, too) would consider debatable and POV.

We should agree on subtitle changes that are NPOV to replace the current subtitle texts and, after a consensus, make the changes. Pr4ever (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

"In 1917, the Jones Act granted Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship..."
"Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens..."
"Puerto Ricans have been granted U.S. citizenship since 1917 due to the Jones-Shafroth Act..."
"Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens..."

Two of the paragraphs are virtually identical. I would delete them if the article wasn't semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.44.208 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 21, 1937, a march was organized in the southern city of Ponce by the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party which turned into a bloody event when the Insular Police[21] ("a force somewhat resembling the National Guard of the typical U.S. state" and which answered to the U.S.-appointed governor Blanton Winship)[22] opened fire upon, what a U.S. Congressman and others reported were, unarmed[23] and defenseless[24] cadets and bystanders alike,[25][26] killing 19 and badly wounding over 200 more,[27] many in their backs while running away.[28][29].

Remarkable, really. I certainly don't want to suggest breaking the easy flow of inline citations here, far less the superb grammatical structure, but I have that nagging feeling that others might consider the sentence a tad unreadable. Oh well. 80.216.24.205 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.^[8]

Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.

CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective and timely, and topped the list of "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" in a 1996 survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology.^[9]

As you can see on the following CRS Report for Congress on the Report RL30527 of April 17, 2000, title "Presidential Elections in the United States: A Primer" adressed the Natural Born Citizens definition.

You can find this Report on the following WikiLeaks Document Release Web Address http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL30527 of February 2, 2009.

On the Abstract of the report indicate the following:

This report describes the four stages of the presidential election process: the pre-nomination primaries and caucuses for selecting delegates to the national conventions; the national nominating conventions; the general election; and voting by members of the electoral college to choose the President and Vice President. The report will be updated again for the 2004 presidential election.

Qualifications for the Office of President (Page 6 - 7)

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.1 Most constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.2 Under the 22nd Amendment, no one may serve more than two full terms, although a Vice President who succeeds to the Presidency and serves less than two full years of the prior incumbent’s term may seek election to two additional terms.

Footnote (Page 6-7)

1 Defined as including the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

2 Citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as “natural born” citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President, provided they meet qualifications of age and 14 years residence within the United States. Residence in Puerto Rico and U.S. territories and possessions does not qualify as residence within the United States for these purposes. [U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Insular Areas and Their Political Development, by Andorra Bruno and Garrine P. Laney, CRS Report 96-578GOV (Washington: Jun. 17, 1996), pp. 9, 21, 33]. I. Presidential Candidates Qualifications for the Office of President Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.1 Most constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.2 Under the 22nd Amendment, no one may serve more than two full terms, although a Vice President who succeeds to the Presidency and serves less than two full years of the prior incumbent’s term may seek election to two additional terms.'

Congressional Research Service reports

Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.

--Seablade (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.^[10]

Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.

CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective and timely, and topped the list of "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" in a 1996 survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology.^[11]

As you can see on the following CRS Report for Congress on the Report RL32933 of February 2, 2009, title "Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress" adressed the Developments since 2005 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as well as Washington, DC, have signaled some renewed congressional attention to the political status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its relationship with the United States.

You can find this Report on the following WikiLeaks Document Release Web Address http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Political_Status_of_Puerto_Rico:_Options_for_Congress%2C_May_29%2C_2008 of February 2, 2009.

On the Abstract of the report indicate the following:

Developments since 2005 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as well as Washington, DC, have signaled some renewed congressional attention to the political status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its relationship with the United States.

Issues of Debate on Political Status Brief summaries of aspects of each status option follow in order to provide basic information on the options. The information below does not represent official descriptions of status options, but is provided only to give general background information. The options are presented in alphabetical order.

Commonwealth.

The commonwealth option represents a continuation of the current status of Puerto Rico. The territorial clause of the United States Constitution empowers Congress with the authority to regulate territories.95 Commonwealth status for Puerto Rico is based on statutory provisions96 and the Constitution of Puerto Rico that established a republican form of self-government. Under current federal law, residents of Puerto Rico enjoy U.S. citizenship, but many contend that the Puerto Rican identity reflects a degree of autonomy that enables the island to remain somewhat separate from, but part of, the United States.97 Some support an enhanced or “new” commonwealth status and seek changes in the current relationship to increase the autonomy of Puerto Rico. Aspects of enhanced commonwealth considered but rejected by Congress in 1991 and 2001 included providing the government of Puerto Rico authority to certify that certain federal laws would not be applicable to the commonwealth, mandating that the President consult with the governor on appointments to federal offices in Puerto Rico that require Senate approval, recognizing a permanent relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that cannot be unilaterally changed, and establishing economic relationships with other nations.98 Concepts associated with enhanced or new commonwealth have not been published in 2005, but the current governor has reportedly sought additional sovereign authority that would enable Puerto Rico’s government officials to negotiate international agreements and establish new intergovernmental fiscal relations with the federal government.

Free Association.

This option would establish Puerto Rico as a sovereign nation separate from, but legally bound (on a terminable basis) to, the United States.99 As a general practice, free association would be preceded by recognition that Puerto Rico is a self-governing sovereign nation not part of the United States, because compacts of free association are legal documents between sovereign nations. Free association could be accompanied by a transition period in which the United States would continue to administer certain services and provide assistance to the island for a period of time specified in the compact. Free association could be annulled at any time by either nation. Negotiations over free association would likely decide issues of trade, defense, currency, and economic aid.

Independence.

Some advocates of independence contend that the cultural identity of Puerto Ricans, and other factors, justify independence. As residents of a sovereign independent nation, Puerto Ricans could develop closer ties to Caribbean nations, but would likely be forced to choose between citizenship in the United States or in Puerto Rico.100 The current unrestricted travel between the United States and the island might end, as would federal benefits (unless specified in the enabling legislation). Puerto Rico would, as a sovereign nation, develop its own economy, form of government, and complete national identity.

Statehood.

Advocates of statehood contend that the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship should be granted to residents of Puerto Rico. Political stability, particularly as an economic development tool, is seen by some to be one significant advantage of statehood. As residents of a state, Puerto Ricans would be entitled to full representation in Congress, would be subject to income taxes, and would be eligible to receive federal assistance like that provided to all of the states.101 Opponents argue that statehood would result in a loss of national identity.

--Seablade (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Congressional Research Service Report RS20458

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.^[12]

Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.

CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective and timely, and topped the list of "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" in a 1996 survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology.^[13]

As you can see on the following CRS Report for Congress on the Report RS20458 of August 20, 2004, title "Vieques, Puerto Rico Naval Training Range: Background and Issues for Congress " adressed the Vieques, Puerto Rico Naval Training Range controversy.

You can find this Report on the following WikiLeaks Document Release Web Address http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Vieques%2C_Puerto_Rico_Naval_Training_Range:_Background_and_Issues_for_Congress%2C_August_20%2C_2004 of February 2, 2009.

On the Abstract of the report indicate the following:

On April 30, 2003, one day ahead of schedule, the Department of the Navy closed down its controversial live-fire training range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques and transferred the land to the Department of the Interior on May 1, 2003. On March 31, 2004, as directed by Section 8132 of the FY2004 defense appropriations act (P.L. 108-87/H.R. 2658), the Navy closed the supporting Roosevelt Roads naval station on mainland Puerto Rico. As directed by Section 8132, the Navy will dispose of the Roosevelt Roads property in accordance with the procedures and authorities of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act of 1990 (10 USC 2687).

Summary

This report discusses the controversy leading up to the closure of the U.S. naval training range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, Congress’ legislation directing the closure, and the potential impact of the closure on military training and readiness. For a discussion of post-closure environmental cleanup issues at Vieques, see CRS Report RL32533.1 On April 30, 2003, the Department of the Navy (DON) closed its training range on Vieques. On March 31, 2004, as directed by Section 8132 of the FY2004 defense appropriations act (P.L. 108-87/H.R. 2658), the Navy closed the supporting Roosevelt Roads naval station on mainland Puerto Rico. This CRS report will be updated as events warrant.

Background information

The Vieques Training Range. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory in the Caribbean whose people are U.S. citizens. Vieques (pronounced vee-EHkez) is a small Puerto Rican island a few miles east of mainland Puerto Rico. The Department of the Navy (DON), which includes the Navy and Marine Corps, purchased the western and eastern ends of the island between 1941 and 1950; the two DON-owned parcels totaled about 22,000 acres, or about two-thirds of the island. Almost all of the 8,000-acre western parcel, which was used primarily as a naval ammunition depot, was returned by DON to the Municipality of Vieques on May 1, 2001. The remaining DONowned 14,000-acre eastern parcel was used by U.S. naval and other military forces since the early 1940s for training exercises involving ship-to-shore gunfire, air-to-ground bombing by naval aircraft, Marine amphibious landings, or some combination. The parcel included a roughly 11,000-acre Eastern Maneuver Area for Marine Corps ground exercises and a roughly 900-acre Live Impact Area (LIA) designed for targeting by live ordnance. The LIA was at the eastern tip of the island, several miles from the civilianpopulated center section of the island, which has about 9,300 residents.Until April 1999, the Navy used the Vieques training range about 180 days per year. Of these, about 120 days were for integrated (i.e., combined land-sea-air) live-fire exercises (i.e., exercises with explosive ammunition) by U.S. Atlantic Fleet aircraft carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups preparing to deploy overseas on regular sixmonth- long deployments to the Mediterranean Sea or Persian Gulf. Until 2001, DON officials argued adamantly that there was no site other than Vieques where Atlantic Fleet naval forces could conduct integrated live-fire training operations, and that such training operations are critical to fully preparing U.S. naval forces for deployment.

--Seablade (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

What exactly are you pursuing here? We already mention most of the relevant parts in the prose. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The introduction says PR is a main island and "a number" of smaller islands. This is vague, as "a number" could be anything from zero to a billion, and in common use does not indicate a rough scale. "A few dozen" is probably more accurate and much more informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.91.7 (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here is the complete list of all the islands and isles, Please do the Math!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_of_Puerto_Rico

--74.213.91.69 (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I counted 138 islands and isles on the whole Archipelago subdivided in 33 island (including Puerto Rico Island) and the 105 isles.

--Seablade (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Congressional Research Service Report RL32533

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.^[14]

Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.

CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective and timely, and topped the list of "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" in a 1996 survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology.^[15]

As you can see on the following CRS Report for Congress on the Report RL32533 of July 7, 2005, title "Vieques and Culebra Islands: An Analysis of Environmental Cleanup Issues " examines the implications of the site listing for environmental cleanup You can find this Report on the following WikiLeaks Document Release Web Address http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Vieques_and_Culebra_Islands:_An_Analysis_of_Environmental_Cleanup_Issues%2C_July_7%2C_2005 of February 2, 2009.

On the Abstract of the report indicate the following:

This report provides information on the listing of Vieques on the NPL, examines the implications of the site listing for environmental cleanup, indicates the status and estimated costs of cleaning up munitions and other environmental contamination on Vieques, and discusses cleanup actions and costs at nearby Culebra Island.

Summary

For decades, the U.S. Navy conducted ship-to-shore bombing exercises and other live-fire training activities on Vieques Island and Culebra Island, located off the coast of Puerto Rico. In response to concerns about risks to public safety, human health, and the environment, Congress directed the Navy to close its training facilities on Vieques Island in 2003 and to relocate them elsewhere. The Navy has begun to investigate the presence of munitions and related contamination on Vieques to determine the cleanup actions that will be necessary to protect human health and the environment, and has begun the surface removal of munitions in some areas. In 1974, Congress had enacted legislation that required the Navy to cease its training operations on Culebra Island, in response to similar public concerns. The Army Corps of Engineers has removed some munitions on Culebra to address safety hazards in publicly accessible areas, but has not begun a comprehensive cleanup of the island. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board are responsible for overseeing these actions. There has been rising public interest in the degree to which the Department of Defense (DOD) will be required to clean up both islands. The scope of the cleanup will depend on the type and extent of contamination found, and whether a pathway of human exposure exists. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107) prohibits public access within the Live Impact Area of the former bombing range on Vieques. Public access also may be limited in other areas due to the presence of munitions hazards. Since denying public access is intended to reduce safety threats, DOD may be allowed to remove fewer munitions than would be required otherwise. However, if contamination has leached from munitions and migrated to present a pathway of exposure, removal of more munitions may be required to protect human health. Possible pathways include the consumption of contaminated groundwater and contaminated fish or shellfish. At the request of the Governor of Puerto Rico, Sila M. Calderon, EPA listed Vieques on the National Priorities List (NPL) of the nation’s most hazardous waste sites on February 11, 2005. Listing a site on the NPL does not affect the stringency of the cleanup that is required or increase the availability of funding for the Navy to perform the cleanup. Rather, it identifies Vieques as a site that warrants further investigation to determine actions that are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The Governor also requested that EPA list Culebra on the NPL along with Vieques. However, EPA “elected to take no action” on its final listing decision for Culebra at that time, and reports that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Army are negotiating a Memorandum of Agreement to govern the cleanup. Regardless of the site listing decision, the degree of cleanup on either island will depend on threats to human health and the environment and the types of remediation that will be deemed necessary to address these threats. Whatever actions are required, the progress of cleanup will depend on the availability of federal funding to pay for the remediation. This report will be updated annually to track the status of cleanup on both islands.

The information provided in this report was originally prepared at the request of Representative Jose Serrano. It has been released in this format for general distribution to interested Members and Committees of Congress and their staff.

--Seablade (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why my post jsut get deleted without an answer?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.113.109 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:SPAM. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

So? You want to tell me im spamming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.113.109 (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Anyways. Why dont you show the most informative webvsite here about PR? Wiki is about information and there is no better information about the island itself than paradise-puertorico.com.

They travel on the island and taking pics of all locations so that the website is always up to date and with high quality pics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.113.109 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply