Talk:Luis Fortuño/Archives/2010/October

Lets not get ahead of ourselves
WP:CRYSTAL is clear. While no one doubts this event will happen, we should wait until after it happens later today to have a version that shows Fortuño as Governor. New user User:Republikaner most probably did the anonymous edits, and I hope he continues his productive editing (great work, if a bit early!) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while unsourced, the reality is that Governors are usually sworn in on Jan. 2 long before the public inaugural oath of office. Gov. Calderón was sworn in seconds after the stroke of midnight on Jan. 2, 2001, according to what I've heard---trying to get rid of her predecessor at the first moment practicable. Likewise, it is said that Gov. Fortuño was sworn in early on the morning of Jan. 2, 2009 by the Chief Justice, hours before the unusually late 4pm official inaugural ceremonies. So, the "premature" posting by User:Republikaner was probably timely after all, albeit unsourced! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.193.94 (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Description of Puerto Rico
It is not irrelevant to state that subject is Governor of Puerto Rico, a territory of the US. First, it is factually correct. Second, for a casual reader, it may provide information that he/she did not know. Third, it differentiates the subject's role from that of other persons who hold the title of "Governor", such as governors of states, governors of Federal Reserve Banks, etc. Pr4ever (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If we wish to be fully inclusive, we can describe the subject of the article as "Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States of America", which provides the name of the body politic and describes its relationship with the US. Pr4ever (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good compromise.The Original Historygeek (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Curtailing civil liberties"
I removed the following paragraph:

First of all, the source is an op-ed, not an objective source.

Second, the paragraph repeatedly violates NPOV. While I believe that the recession that started in March 2006 is "the worst economic situation since 1930s' " (sic), it is simply a point of view that the author of the paragraph and I share. The members of the public were not merely "UPR students". While that sounds nice and sweet, the sponsors included "Juventud Socialista" and "Movimiento Socialista de Trabajadores" or Socialist Youth and the Socialist Workers Movement (Yes, Virginia, the Cold War has not entirely ended in PR!). It is a matter of discussion who struck first. Photos were published of a spray being directed at police, presumably mace, seconds before the meleé started. Two citizens arrested had knapsacks full of rocks (and they probably were not rock collectors or geology majors at UPR!)

Third, if "the press was shut out of the legislative house" (sic), it has nothing to do with Fortuño because legislative rules and enforcement are the purview of legislative leadership.

A Wikipedia entry of a very contemporary developing and politically controversial news story has to be especially neutral and well-sourced. This graf was not.

Pr4ever (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC


 * Although I understand your point, you make a lot of other points which are completely off track. First of all, there is no such group in PR with such an uncolorful name as "Juventud Socialista". However, there is the "Movimiento Socialista de Trabajadores", who have a youth organization who have also a STUDENT chapter. So yes, we were all students there (except for the old ladies that the police beat up indiscriminately). It is VERY WELL documented that the police struck first, when they beat up the student press inside the legislature, completely unprovoked. Yes, students fired mace at the police, but maybe you didnt notice the police HITTING THEM WITH NIGHTSTICKS? Are they supposed to drop their pants and let the police "stick it to them" literally?


 * Also, for all you boast of objectivity, there is absolutely NO PROOF anyone had rocks there. Nobody saw them EVER; that was part of the police report to the press, and the very press denied rocks were ever thrown. That is also well documented. Of course, you will deny it, cuz it doesnt help your case to say otherwise.


 * The press was not neutral documenting the incident, because it was OBVIOUS what was happening. Of course, people like you who are paid by the "Progressive" (more like Medievalist) Party have to deny it. It's your job. --- a puertorrican (who was actually THERE, unlike some other people I can mention...)


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.176.32 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)