Talk:Puerto Rico

Wiki Education assignment: Women and Power in Latin America

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natesantjs9 (article contribs).

pending plebiscite

There is a binding plebiscite vote in the works for November 2023. Not yet approved, but even the proposal is noteworthy for the history section. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-lawmakers-urge-binding-vote-puerto-rico-statehood-84842296

problem in the beginning of the article

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)

Bizarre footnote added to intro

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)

King Charles I of Spain

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)

Citizenship for Puerto Ricans

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)

Hurricane Maria 2017

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

San Juan

San Juan is the capital of Puerto Rico 108.14.14.126 (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)