Talk:Puerto Rico

Archipelago

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)

The term "forced migration" is a euphemism

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)

Typos

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)

Does Puerto Rico need help in restoring electrical infrastructure

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

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).

Bad Bunny

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)

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)

***Foreigners can NOT purchase Flower Marijuana in Puerto Rico!!***

Travelers need to know they can not purchase flower marijuana even with medical cannabis card!! Outsiders can only purchase vapes and edibles, NO FLOWER!! 139.60.185.39 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a travel website. As an encyclopedia article, the details and intricacies of cannabis law in the Commonwealth is probably not all that important a topic to an article on the entire Commonwealth. That said, it does have its own article for the subject at Cannabis in Puerto Rico. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)