Talk:Puerto Rico/Archive 6

This edit request to Puerto Rico has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I will place "disputed" next to Pedro Pierluisi as governor of Puerto Rico, since it is probable that his swearing was unconstitutional. There is a current lawsuit happening. https://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/locales/nota/altribunallaconfirmaciondepedropierluisi-2509823/ 192.107.156.196 (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: My understanding is that he was sworn in. If so, then he is the governor. If there's a lawsuit challenging his legitimacy, that doesn't change the fact that is the governor. If that changes, then the "governor" entry can be updated once the courts make their decisions. Mercy11 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Puerto Rico has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My family is from Puerto Rico, which might explain why I'm interested in improving this article. I'd like to supplement the snippet "its lack of natural resources used to produce raw materials" with the following citation: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/us/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-agriculture-.html. Thanks in advance! TheVorpal (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Not done. @TheVorpal: I read through the article you cited and it doesn't appear to support the phrase. Specifically, the article talks about agriculture, not natural resources or the production of raw materials. Can you let me know if I read the source wrong? Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Meetup invitation from the Wikimedians of the Carribbean User Group

 

Wiki Caribbean presenta: “Las cinco cosas más interesantes en Wikipedia, Wikimedia y Wikidata, y cómo pueden ayudar a impulsar la información sobre Puerto Rico” Café y donas con Autor Andrew Lih En la sede de Microsoft, Puerto Rico Cuándo: 27 de noviembre de 2019, 11:30 a.m. a 1:30 p.m., hora del Atlántico Dónde: oficinas de Microsoft Puerto Rico City View Plaza, 48, PR-165, Guaynabo, 00968. Detalles: Wiki Caribbean Café y donas, Puerto Rico. Charla con café y donas junto al experto de Wikipedia y autor Andrew Lih

Wiki Caribbean Presents: “The five most exciting things in Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and Wikidata - and how they can help boost content about Puerto Rico” Coffee and donuts with Author Andrew Lih Hosted by Microsoft,Puerto Rico When: November 27, 2019, 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM Atlantic Time Where: Location: Microsoft Puerto Rico offices City View Plaza, 48, PR-165, Guaynabo, 00968. Details: Wiki Caribbean Coffee and donuts, Puerto Rico. Learn about the exciting new things happening in the world of Wikipedia,in a Coffee and donuts discussion with Wikipedia scholar and author Andrew Lih.--Pharos (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am requesting that a sentence be cited or removed. The section "United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization" ends with the declaration that "However, these efforts have been meaningless and without effect for the most part" without citation. The lack of action on the committee's call is notable, but without a citation the statement reads as editorial; particularly the use of the valuing term "meaningless." Cjdbass (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently many people on Wikipedia are confused about territories. People who think the territories of the United States are "in the United States", answer me this - why are they not included in the official US population count? Only the fifty states and D.C. are included in the official population count by the census bureau. Also, I challenge one of you to find one official US government statement that is valid stating that Puerto Rico is "in the United States". The fact that US territories are not "in the United States" needs to be standardized throughout Wikipedia. Led8000 (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is fairly clear about this - "is an unincorporated territory of the United States", with much of it devoted to its status as a territory and the implications therein (voting, representation, etc) . What edit are you proposing? MartinezMD (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The comment is probably due to the fact that the issue comes up again and again across Wikipedia on different P.R. articles. Editors should read Article Four of the United States Constitution and Insular Cases prior to claiming Puerto Rico is in the United States. It is not.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico IS in the United States. Refer to Citizenship Clause, which states that, ""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." If Puerto Rico were not in the United States then Puerto Ricans would not have birthright American citizenship. This was actually true in the past, when Puerto Ricans were held not to be citizens. The current state of the law is wholly unambiguous, however: Puerto Ricans are American at birth because Puerto Rico is "in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction".

The Insular Cases date from over 100 years ago and are no longer the controlling law, and no longer reflect current popular or legal thinking, about Puerto Rico. Laws change over time; black people would still be slaves instead of Presidents if not.2601:195:C100:F220:18F8:227:CE54:6708 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear anonymous contributor, I invite you to read this regarding Puerto Rico and consider the hard work by editors on the WikiProject Puerto Rico before you make statements that are not supported by references. Wikipedia Signpost of May 14th, 2014 here Cheers, The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit entered under Rebuilding Efforts of this article, citing how 2019-2020 earthquake swarms have impacting rebuilding efforts. Sources cited on edit. -Booksbodysoul (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

=FzzyBnnySlpprs (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone with experience on the topic should include a note about mofongo, a plantain-based starchy food popular in Puerto Rico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.boeck (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• There are articles, such as Mofongo and Puerto Rican Cuisine, that already cover the topic in detail. Mercy11 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Hurricane Irma hit the island on September 6 as a category 5 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 180 mph (290 km/h), and was the most powerful hurricane to hit the island in recorded history."

The page makes it seem like Irma actually made landfall on the island, proclaiming it was the most powerful storm to hit the island with 180 mph. This isn't the case, the most the island got was Cat 2 winds since the eye of the storm was around 50 miles to the north. As it stands, the most powerful storm to hit the island is still the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane, known in Puerto Rico the the San Felipe Segundo hurricane. It made landfall as a Cat 5 storm with 160 mph winds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.117.232 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the spelling "Borinquén" the preferred transliteration or spelling in Taino, or a Spanish spelling of a word borrowed from Taino? I was going to change the unaccented spelling to include the accent on the "e", but I wasn't sure that'd be correct. -- Beland (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Dorian had barely any impact on the island of Puerto Rico. Instead it would be worthwhile to talk about the protests that occurred in the summer of 2019 that resulted in governor Ricardo Rossello being ousted.Southstyle17 (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I moved Dorian to the climate section and I added a link to the telegramgate article at the end of the Hurricane Maria section Edsanz (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Puerto Rico has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

First paragraph, First sentence: "... (Spanish for (Spanish for 'Rich Port'; abbreviated PR, Taino: Boriken, Borinquen) ...", change: Taino -> Taíno Boriken -> Borikén. Jay Hobbes (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Missing is this first line: P.R. has a governor, 27 Senators and 51 Representatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.203.119 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "This was important for the economy, since tourism provides up 10% of Puerto Rico's GDP, according to Discover Puerto Rico.[259]" to "This was important for the economy, since tourism provides up to 10% of Puerto Rico's GDP, according to Discover Puerto Rico.[259]"

SayumForFun (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 23:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Porto Rico. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 2#Porto Rico until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This makes no sense when 1) there are other, much longer articles in Wikipedia, and 2) 1/3 of this article is devoted to footnotes and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYLatinoJournal (talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"Puerto Ricans have been citizens of the United States since 1917, and can move freely between the island and the mainland.[25]"

According to the footnote linking to 8 U.S. Code § 1402 "All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth."

The Jones-Shafroth Act was passed in 1917, however it did not make Puerto Ricans citizens until 1941. So the above year 2017 should be changed to 1941. Or am I missing something? Sammysoul (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you found that 1941 date in the Jones Act. You probably found it in 8 USC § 1402, or in another copy of that or of text from that. The info on this found in Jones–Shafroth Act#Citizenship looks like it needs expansion (there is currently a hatnote there saying that). I think this may be clarified in Charles R. Venator-Santiago (2015), Puerto Rico and the Origins of U.S. Global Empire: The Disembodied Shade, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 978-1-135-04734-4 -- in the sections headed JUS SANGUINIS CITIZENSHIP, 1906–1940 and JUS SOLI CITIZENSHIP, 1940–PRESENT there. I'm not going to attempt that clarification right now; perhaps some editor more qualified to do that than I can help. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot of nitty-gritty about the installation of US citizenship on Puerto Ricans than just the 1917 date, that is correct. However, I would agree that this article is already oversized and those nitty-gritty details (there others yet beyond the 1999 & 1941 dates) shpould prbably go elsewhere. Puerto Rican citizenship has a section on US citizenship and might be a good place for the details. I am adding a hatnote here to the smaller article anyway for, with or without the 1899, 1941, and other dates, was missing. Mercy11 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for WP:SS, I wasn't suggesting expansion here; I was offering an inexpert response with helpful intent to "Or am I missing something?". Hopefully, my response was a net positive. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree you weren't suggesting expansion here, and yes I agree your response was TOTALLY positive. Best regards, Mercy11 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See this article, especially page 231 (with a reproduction of part of an official map published in Spain in 1562) and later pages for undeniable evidence that the name Porto Rico (so spelled) was coined in Spanish by native speakers of Spanish under no influence of English or any other language. The English name Porto Rico comes from the Spanish name Porto Rico.

Gold, David L. 2012. "The Politicization of a Monophthong: A Refutation of All the Puerto Rican Myths About the Native Spanish Place Name Porto Rico." In Estudios de lingüística española: Homenaje a Manuel Seco. Félix Rodríguez González, ed. Alicante. Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante. Pp. 215-268.S. Valkemirer (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Footnote c to the current lead implies that the form "Porto Rico" was a misspelling used only from 1898 to 1932, and kept out of "linguistic pride". I don't believe that's a fair description of the situation.

Here are some earlier uses of this spelling:

• "rapportée de la Jamaïque et de Porto-Rico par Maugé" (p. 242 in Lesson, R.P. and Garnot, P. 1826. Voyage autour du monde, exécuté par ordre du Roi, sur la Corvette de Sa Majesté, La Coquille, pendant les années 1822, 1823, 1824 et 1825, sous le ministère et conformément aux instructions de S. E. M. le Marquis Clermont-Tonnerre, Minister de la Marine; et publié sous les auspices de son Excellence Mgr le Cte de Chabrol, Ministre de la Marine et des Colonies. Zoologie. Tome Premier. Arthus Bertrand, 360 pp.)

• "Inhabits Egypt, Porto Rico, and Europe." (p. 311 in Smith, A. 1834. African Zoology. South African Quarterly Journal (2)4(1):305-320.)

• "A single specimen of this interesting species is contained in a collection from Porto Rico, West Indies, sent to the Smithsonian Institution by George Latimer, correspondent at that island." (p. 125 in Cope, E.D. 1868. An examination of the Reptilia and Batrachia obtained by the Orton Expedition to Equador and the Upper Amazon, with notes on other species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 20:96-140.)
• "Jamaica, Santo Domingo, Porto Rico." (p. 97 in Boulenger, G.A. 1893. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History). Volume I., Containing the Families Typhlopidæ, Glauconiidæ, Boidæ, Ilysiidæ, Uropeltidæ, Xenopeltidæ, and Colubridæ Aglyphæ, part. Printed by Order of the Trustees, 448 pp.)

I would say in the lead that the name is "formerly also spelled Porto Rico in English". The footnote can clarify that the name was used officially by U.S. colonial authorities from 1898 to 1932. Ucucha (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@ Ucucha. You are right, but one can go further: the place name Porto Rico was coined in native Spanish (under no English, French, etc. influence) by no later than 1562. See my remark below, with a reference to an article on the subject that appeared in Spain in 2012.S. Valkemirer (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The edits to clarify that the 1952 Commonwealth is a new, rebranded version of US colonialism is not a "point of view" from one group or another; ALL POLITICAL PARTIES in Puerto Rico — ALL OF THEM — have declared that Puerto Rico CONTINUES to exist in a state of colonial rule. How the article state in one area that Puerto Rico "remains an unincorporated territorial possession, making it the world's oldest colony," and then say Puerto Rico's colonial status is someone's point of view? Do you not understand how insane that sounds? Where is the bias in this? Where is the bias in the fact that a GAG LAW on the people — again, clearly stated in the same article and in the same section — was in place when this new version of US Colony came into power? How is that the UNITED NATIONS calls Puerto Rico a colony, but not Wikipedia...? Really?

Who's POV are we really talking about here? -- NYLatinoJournal (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I really think this point should be spelled out in more detail, because for me as a European it is not clear what is meant exactly, also, although from another historical angle. Is "remains an unincorporated territorial possession, making it the world's oldest colony" supposed to mean "the oldest colony still in existence worldwide (today)"? When yes, why not phrase it like this? Or, "the oldest US-colony still in existence"? Obviously, historically there were ancient colonies in the Mediterranean BCE which were thousands of years older. Without "still in existence", it seems to me like the article claims there are no and never have been historically older colonies (worldwide) at all ... -- marilyn.hanson (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Marilyn. By "oldest colony still in existence" is meant 'of all the colonies now existing in the world, Puerto Rico has been in existence longer than any other'. If you have counter-evidence, it would be good to have it.S. Valkemirer (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Valkemirer. Jumping in to remark that my older comment just below provides counter-evidence. PR's colonial status is no older than that of Guam. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marilyn. Yes, you are right. I had forgotten about Guam.S. Valkemirer (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

PR was acquired by the U.S. via article 2 of the 1898 Treaty of Paris along with Guam. PR and Guam remain unincorporated US territories, and are of precisely equal age in that status ("making it the world's oldest colony" ought to be changed in the article; that sometimes-seen characterization is incorrect without a mention of Guam). According to the article, PR has had three referenda about changing that status with results three times not to change it (and that will probably come up again at some point). I think that the article ought to point up the similarity in US colonial status between Guam and PR, and also ought to mention, briefly but all together, PR status change movements along with the referenda and their results. Perhaps this could be done in an intro before the subsections under the American colony (1898–current) section heading, or perhaps in an initial subsection there headed Status or some variation of that. That "world's oldest colony" characterization could be moved there with some added clarification as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

{added note} I've attempted to clarify the meaning of the term "Commonwealth" in the article here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Would linking to Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) rather than Commonwealth help? I think it's the former term that's being discussed rather than commonwealths in general. I've already modified most wikilinks that refer to PR and Marianas in that way. Certes (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that it is important to look at the dictionary definitions of "colony" and compare them to Puerto Rico's status. Doing so, I don't believe it meets all the criteria. Also, User:NYLatinoJournal, I could not find where the UN as a body calls Puerto Rico a colony (except, possibly, the Special Committee on Decolonization). I think it would be fine to note some of the colonial aspects of its status in/relationship with the USA, but I think that calling it a "colony" as a matter of settled fact is incorrect. Political status of Puerto Rico#Controversies does a decent job of exploring some of the controversy. --LucasGK123 (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... I see that NYLatinoJournal's objection to the language raised here was apparently addressed in this edit. Re definitions, I think the definition which pertains is the one in the lead sentence of the WP Colony article: "In political science, a colony is a territory subject to a form of foreign rule." I've wikilinked that detail article section mentioned above in the Political status section of this article; revert and/or improve otherwise as appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that link, User:Wtmitchell. Even if we use the Colony definition as our standard, there is still a degree of debate as discussed in Political status of Puerto Rico#Controversies because the island has had some self-rule since 1952. --LucasGK123 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

In the main header section, this article says that "American citizens in Puerto Rico are disenfranchised at the national level". This word is an inaccurate description of the situation and implies victimization. "Disenfranchisement" is the denial of the right to vote and in the case of Puerto Rico, under current law and political status, this right is not denied because it does not exist. Puerto Rico's political status means that its American citizen residents lack certain rights but they also enjoy certain benefits - like not being subject to US Federal income tax. It would be better to say that "American citizens in Puerto Rico do not have the right to vote at the national level..."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sftrny (talk • contribs) 12:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying they are not victims because they never even had the right to vote? I'm latino, and from our perspective they are pretty much a colony. Of course they are your victims. Blacks have it rough, but they can vote at least. Boricuas are second class citizens, wether you want to admit it or not.

201.239.206.63 (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

When I saw this in my watchlist, the talk section header echoed there sparked a thought something like "'disenfranchised' there should be 'not enfranchised', or words to that effect". I didn't think of victimhood until I read the diff. Following the wikilink in the article, though, I see that the nit I'm picking by making that observation here comes from elsewhere. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the word "disenfranchised" is inaccurate, victimization is irrelevant. Puerto Rican residents are allowed to vote in Puerto Rican elections and therefore are not "disenfranchised". One may argue they are partially disenfranchised but at that point you have confirmed that it is not the right word to describe the voter status. It is important to note: though US citizens, Puerto Rican residents are not able to vote for president of the United States due to lack of representation in congress and subsequently the electoral college. This is about facts, not perspective (I'm a Puerto Rican citizen). Ccross715 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that it is also important to note the fact, seldom mentioned in discussions about this, that the status of Puerto Rico is mirrored by Guam, which became a U.S. territory along with, at the same time as, and by the same process as Puerto Rico. AFAIK, all arguments re representation of and the the voter franchise for Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans apply equally to Guam and Guamanians. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is governed by the United States Federal Government. It has a measure of internal autonomy that is graciously granted, as a favor, by the American Congress and can be revoked at any time. Puerto Ricans cannot vote for President and have no vote in the legislature which holds absolute power over them. That is "disenfranchisement" under any definition. The rest is nonsense.12.90.180.254 (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Puerto Rico has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The population of Puerto Ricans that identifies as black is 17 percent not 7 percent. 67.224.128.86 (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us. It would be even more helpful if you would provide a Wikipedia:Reliable source, so that we could update the article with that fact and its supporting citation. Cheers. Mgnbar (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IrbisM.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In paragraph 3, describing the kidnap and forced transatlantic transportation of Africans into chattel enslavement implies they were fleeing an earthquake, war, or other disaster of their own volition. It erases the violence done to them and replaces it with an inaccurate, innocuous euphemism. The proper phrasing should be "the kidnapping and forced transatlantic transportation of Africans into chattel slavery." 73.109.46.175 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)LEPeters

Yes, "forced migration" is a euphemism. But the sentence does not merely say "Africans" but rather "African slaves". The violence you mention is implicit in that word "slaves". I don't think that the lede of the Puerto Rico article can usefully summarize what slavery means. Later sections describe some particulars of slavery in Puerto Rico.

The start of the sentence that you mentioned is more problematic to me, as it omits the large-scale death of the native population.

So anyway I have edited the sentence a little. But I'm not sure that my edit really addresses your point, because it uses the equally anodyne word "introduction". Mgnbar (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Although "native" is probably not the right word. Taíno works better. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple errors in this sentence: First populated by the Ortoiroid people, who where latter displaced by the Saladoid peoples, who where themselves latter displaced by the indigenous Taíno people

It should be "who were later displaced..." and "who were themselves later displaced..."

In both instances: Change where to were Change latter to later

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.134.60 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done Mercy11 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Puerto Rico consists of multiple islands, not just one. PR is an archipelago. Luixaca (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but most reliable English-language sources commonly call it an island, and so does this article whenever possible. In general this is not a problem, however. The geography section describes it as an archipelago as well as the introduction, by the way. Mercy11 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Electrical infrastructure 63.140.69.211 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Why isnt Bad Bunny (Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio) in the music section? 176.138.123.82 (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Who knows? I added him. By the way, you can add such material yourself. Editing the article is no more difficult than editing this talk page. Cheers. Mgnbar (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

it looks locked. I couldn't find an edit button.03:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC) 172.58.27.71 (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

In the beginning of the article it's written "the Commonwealth is an archipelago" where it should be written "Puerto Rico is an archipelago" SCSA1218 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

At the end of the sentence "American citizens of Puerto Rico are disenfranchised at the national level, do not vote for the president or vice president, and generally do not pay federal income tax" a user has added this footnote that violates a number of WP policies (especially on POV, style, and reliable sourcing). Does anybody think that anything can be salvaged from it, or should it just be removed entirely? XAM2175 ^(T) 13:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The same note has been added to the Political status of Puerto Rico article at some point, too. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not bizarre. It's related to correcting misinformation. The article was fixed because it originally stated that Puerto Ricans do not pay federal taxes. User added sources and text based on a discussion on a Did you know Puerto Rico. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@XAM2175: Blurbs on "Did you know" pages come from articles so the info on the articles was corrected after much discussion. See item #5 on the linked Did you know Puerto Rico. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: Be that as it may, it's hugely unwieldy as a footnote. If it's "correcting misinformation" then the better thing to do, in my mind, would be to remove any existing misinformation from the article and then insert this correction in a place where it will 1) actually be readable, and 2) genuinely contribute to improving the reader's understanding of the topic. At the very minimum though it needs to be re-written to comply with MOS:INSTRUCT, and it wouldn't hurt to convert the citations per WP:PARREF as part of that process either. I'm also concerned that "Eagleforum" is a WP:PARTISAN source, and thus potentially unreliable. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@XAM2175: if there is misinformation to be corrected in the article, it would be helpful if it was pointed out so the focus can be on that. That footnoted information has been in the article in one fashion or another for over a decade, is documented with sources, and has been viewed by scores of editors without any concerns. As The Eloquent Peasant states the footnote corrected misinformation. But, Eloquent, I have to agree with XAM2175 and any unreliable sources must be replaced or else tagged accordingly to allow editors a chance to provide better sourcing. Mercy11 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mercy11: You misunderstand me; I haven't identified any misinformation in the article, but The Eloquent Peasant has claimed that the footnote is "related to correcting misinformation" and I read that as meaning that it attempts to contradict information either in that article, or in others. I gather now that it is simply aimed at correcting a general impression amongst the public, but I still firmly believe that it's misplaced and poorly written. As a minimum all the citations in the form of (see ...) should be shown in the same format we now use for article bodies, and the cited columns at Eagleforum should be replaced by a reliable non-partisan source - and even then I would still feel that it was written like an opinion piece or an argumentative essay (WP:NOTESSAY/WP:NOTOPINION).

Thinking further, would it not be better if it was rewritten as a body section and inserted into the Political status of Puerto Rico article? That way the footnote need only have a "for more information see..." link, rather being so unwieldy. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Under "colonization under the Habsburgs", it talks about King Charles I of Spain, although Spain did not exist by then. It would be more correct to use King Charles I of Castille. This is a common mistake that occurs when mentioning this king since, although in some documents he is appointed as king of Hispania, we cannot translate this concept of Hispania (which evoked the ancient Roman Iberian province) with the current concept of Spain born in the 19th century as the same time as nationalism did as an ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.34.26 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

According to the source cited (#20 - 8 U.S. Code § 1402 – Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after 11 April 1899 (1941) Retrieved: 14 January 2015) it seems that they only achieved citizenship in 1941 and not in 1917, as stated in the article. Does anyone have a better source for 1917 or should it be changed to 1941? Thank you. Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Was a terroity of the USA in 1898 108.14.14.126 (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Puerto Rico has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In "Cost of living" subsection, second paragraph: "kilowatt/hour" should be changed to "kilowatt-hour", the former being incorrect. Tartopohm (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done Xan747 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)