Talk:Politics of Puerto Rico/Archives/2008/March

Unsourced Statements, Assertions and Political Bias
Most of the statements in this entire article are unsourced and could be seen as having a certain political bias. Though the article is not overtly inflammatory, the lack of factual citation could permit a certain political viewpoint to be presented as fact even if it is not supported by references, to the detriment of opposing political viewpoints. Though am I not Puerto Rican and have no political dogs in any fights concering PR, as a neutral reader, I am left sceptical of many points raised in what appears to be a very well written article. Given the (alleged?) terrorist activities of certain elements of Puerto Rican policital groups, I tend to be critical of unsourced statements when I do not see any citations or references. This weakness throws the entirety of an otherwise seemingly well written article into doubt as a useful reference tool for a critical thinker. Veriss 04:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Article shows a bias for statehood, and is incomplete, political history before 1898 is ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raimon2K6 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Major clean-up
The following tags have been present in this article for some time:
 * POV - since August 2007
 * refimprove - since November 2007
 * cleanup - since May 2007

As such, I am taking an axe to this article, and will try to form it into somthing more encyclopedic. I will remove ALL items in an unsourced section or with unsourced inline tags older than February 2008. I will alos be removing obvious POV issues, tagged or not, sourced or not. THe sourced item in the Lead on PR being one of the world's last "colonies" is obviously POV, andcertainly too controversial for the Lead. If I can fit it somewhere esle, I will. I will also be removing the section of Government, as there already is a Government of Puerto Rico article, and hence this section is redundant. I will try to keep anything from this section that is relevant to understanding the rest of the article. I will definitely be making other POV changes throughout the article, such as to the heading "Political territorial occupation by the United States".

I am also splitting out the lengthy section on "The status question" to the new article I'm creating, Political status of Puerto Rico, which will also merge in the Puerto Rican status referendums page and portions of the Puerto Rican independence movement page.

The Puerto Rico section is fairly lengthy, and actually much better written than much of this article. Where possible, I will be adding that text in place of the sections here that need it, and merging in the rest. I'll try to leave a short summary in the Puerto Rico article, but my prose may need rewriting or tightening up.

I don't expect everyone to be happy about thse changes, but no one else has taken inititive to improve these article in any way to address the POV and referencing issues. Therefore, I am being bold and giving it a shot. - BillCJ (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

History is incomplete and needs to be expanded

There are two problems with the article. The first is that it totally ignores politics before 1898. Some of the issues and trends from the era still prevail today. People like Luis Muñoz Rivera and even Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa's work before 1898 are not even mentioned. Second problem is an obvious pro-statehood bias. Major edits are needed. If I can find the time, I'' do some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raimon2K6 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)