Talk:Political status of Puerto Rico/Archives/2012/October

Extra statements on 2012 U.S. Democratic Party Platform are just propaganda
This section deals with an anonymous editor (IP 72.50.32.235) who is arguing that to describe the U.S. Democratic Party 2012's platform on the political status of Puerto Rico, the text

"Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico."

is better than the text,

"We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling."

I have reverted the edits by anonymous IP user User:72.50.32.235 located HERE because they violate the WP:Propaganda policy. The editor claims immunity under the WP:NPOV policy, but this is neither correct reason nor correct logic. (1) For one thing you cannot harbor yourself under the POV umbrella with the claim that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (see HERE) when the other party (the Republican Party) has also been afforded only the same fair amount room for its exposition (5 lines or about 100 words in my PC's display). The editor attempts to more than double the amount of space afforded the Democratic Party's position. In addition, there is no bias (as he implies) in the elimination of his extra statements: it's not a bias/NPOV issue, it's a propaganda/unencyclopedic issue - the extra statements do nothing to express the Democratic Party's position. And to complete my rebuttal on this first point, I remind this editor that not everything published in RS is Wikipedia material. (2) For a second thing, and even more important than doubling the amount of text in his favor, his NPOV claim is riddle with faulty logic. The reason here is that the editor is adding material that is purely propaganda, thus in violation of WP:PROPAGANDA, which is a core WP:NOT Wikipedia policy and, the way I see it, the WP:NOT policies supercede any WP:NPOV policy for, in short, if something does not belong in the encyclopedia to begin with, then whether or not it is POV is a moot point. His logic is no logic at all.

But even if it was not faulty logic (which I argue it is) the content he added bears all the characteristics of WP:SOAP, and thus in violation of that additional policy as well, bringing us back to the WP:NOT policies again. The editor is hereby invited to becomes familiar with these 3 policies. For the amount of rhetoric in the statements he inseted, and then re-inserted reverting my revert of his edits, he is also invited to read up the well-written essay WP:Rhetoric.

An additional note: even if only some of the contents under debate were propaganda and some was not, the fact remains that the text has to be removed because it holds no WP:WEIGHT (read: NPOV) for what is being presented in that section. Thus is is the anonymous editor that is in violation of WP:NPOV!

As an add-on, the editor, as shown HERE failed to follow protocol by not providing an edit-summary justifications for his additions in question. It appears he wants them there based on I just like it.

The editor, in addition, appears quite suspicious to me...he only showed up to edit only this part of only this article only (see HERE), which makes me even wonder if he is a case of wp:sock puppetry.

The editor in question is invited to make his case here...Although I see that another editor has already (HERE) also reverted the anonymous editor's re-entered edit.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Not only that, but the text at issue was added to text quoted from the Democratic Party Platform, and supported by a cite of the Democratic Party Platform website. The added text is not present in the supporting source cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions - Congressional Research Service CRS Report
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report

Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.198.168 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)