Talk:Puerto Rico/Archive 3

State citizenship article reference deletion
I would suggest that the state citizenship article reference's deletion should be reviewed. The rererenced article is fully applicable to "Puerto Rican citizenship", which is a sub-national citizenship exactly the same as that of a state's citizenship, as described in the referenced article. The appropriate edit, perhaps, should not be the deletion of the reference in the Puerto Rico article, but edits to the State citizenship article expanding it to "state and territorial" citizenship. By the way, any reference to the Mari Bras case is inapplicable, since that case is flawed due to the fact that it contradicts Puerto Rico law, specifically modified 2 days before the Mari Bras opinion was issued, and which the Supreme Court did not address in its opinion, obviously not knowing about that law, which basically applied everything contained in the State citizenship article to Puerto Rico citizenship. Should the court's current majority have the ocassion to revisit the issue, absolutely no one in Puerto Rico would doubt that the flawed Mari Bras decision would be revoked. Pr4ever (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The link for "state citizenship" appeared at the end of paragraph that was copy and pasted from Puerto Rican citizenship (which already includes a link to the other article) . But if you think is relevant to have a link to the state citizenship article, maybe a sentence or two should be written about it. I would like to see some references, because as far as I know the Mari Bras ruling has not been overturned. --Jmundo (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, references included it on the article.

--Seablade (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The two paragraphs about the Puerto Rican citizenship and the Colon v State Department should be trim per WP:undue. I don' think the mention of an obscure legal case like the last one is relevant to this article...unless we have an large group of Puerto Rican wanting to renounce US citizenship and this becoming a notable topic. --Jmundo (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have trim the paragraphs leaving the US State Department position and the link to the state citizenship article. --Jmundo (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC) JJ is a boob

Recent developments: rv: wishful thinking, lacking sources. Every year is the same story
Hello JMundo,

I notice that on your last update your include the following POV Comment about one of my updates: Recent developments: rv: wishful thinking, lacking sources. Every year is the same story

Well, the data that you deleted of the article is included identical on the Congressional Research Service Report source used: Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress of August 4, 2009 on Page 26. I just copy and paste it!

CRS Report for Congress RL32933 Updated on August 4, 2009

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32933

Political Status of Puerto Rico:Options for Congress August 4, 2009

Concluding Observations

'''Recent activity regarding Puerto Rico’s political status—in Congress and on the island—suggests that action may be taken in the 111th Congress. The reports issued in 2007 and 2005 by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status may be the bases for reconsideration of the existing commonwealth status, as legislative developments during the 109th and 110th Congresses suggested.''' Agreement on the process to be used in considering the status proposals has been as elusive as agreement on the end result. Congress would have a determinative role in any resolution of the issue. The four options that appear to be most frequently discussed include continuation of the commonwealth, modification of the current commonwealth agreement, statehood, or independence. If independence, or separate national sovereignty, were selected, Puerto Rican officials might seek to negotiate a compact of free association with the United States.

Regards, -Seablade (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement because it didn't have a reference. Also the sentence should say "According to a Congressional Research Service Report.." --Jmundo (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with the comment. However the reference used on the previous paragraph is the same one! -Seablade (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendenciaspr.com
I suggest you add an external link to www.tendenciaspr.com. This website provides useful statistic information about Puerto Rico. Most of it is accesible for both english and spanish users. Check it out! -Ana.g.serrano (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Typos
Hi amigos, I noticed a typo in this article. Wiki isn't letting me fix them so I am reporting them. In the Administrative Divisions section, "... at the secondary level witch function" should read "... which function". Otherwise it sounds like brujeria...

Under the International Status heading the first paragraph references a term "non-selfgoverning" and the second paragraph introduces "self-government". This causes confusion as to where the hyphen should be, and if "non-selfgoverning" is actually a real term. T3mplar (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Porto Rico
As others have pointed out throughout the archive & probably previously added to the article, the official name of the island was previously Porto Rico and that should be mentioned within the article. I'm unsure about the first adoption, but it was the official spelling from the occupation of the territory until the adoption of 48 U.S.C. § 731a on May 17, 1932. If Puerto Rican editors take exception to the inclusion of that information in the lede, at least include it further down the article per WP:PRESERVE. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not Puerto Rican so I have no agenda here. (And could care less what nationality you are, as the topic of nationality is irrelevant to the building of the encyclopedia.) Digging, as you have said you did, into archives illustrates your propensity to seek out the most impertinent bit of information. Wikipedia is not a wp:directory of everything that has existed.  And, by the way, if you are seeking a citation for the common-knowledge nickname of "Island of Enchantment" (as you were doing HERE today), then you are truly the person least qualified to judge the relevance to the rest of the article of what the Island may have been named a century ago. Please refrain from making edits that do not add to the overall value of the Puerto Rico article. I would suggest you start acting in good faith -- the circumstances (and circumstances) surrounding your edits hardly merit any other judgement. Mercy11 (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am Puerto Rican and I can assure you that it has never been named "Porto" Rico. The island's previous name was "Boriken", given to it by the Taino indians. It then evolved to "Borinquen", but when the spanish arrived Christopher Columbus named it "San Juan Bautista". The capital of Puerto Rico was named "Puerto Rico" and the names got eventually mixed up, so the capital turned to be named "San Juan" and the island, "Puerto Rico". When the island was passed down to the United States its named was already "Puerto Rico" and it has never been changed. "Porto" Rico is just the way native english speakers pronounce the current name, and even if the United States wrote "Porto", or called it "Porto" it has never been officially changed. So the island's name used to be Puerto Rico way before the United States invasion, it was Puerto Rico after the invasion, it is Puerto Rico now and it always will be. 24.54.247.251 (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC) A real Puerto Rican girl.

Puerto Rico is the name, but when the U.S got there, since they didn't speak Spanish they tried to mimic the sound (Porto Rico sounds almost as Puerto Rico. There are no official records of it ever being called Porto Rico.  But we've found some writings that confirm that the U.S called Puerto Rico, Porto Rico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.102.188 (talk • contribs) 10:37, August 20, 2010


 * No official records of it ever being called Porto Rico? Never been named "Porto" Rico? How about
 * Article II of the 1898 treaty of Paris?
 * Some of these items at the Library of Congress?
 * Some of these items at the U.S. Supreme Court?
 * Some of these items in the Congressional Record?
 * BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)?
 * That's just a few quick items. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding a few more items:
 * Puerto Rico. The School Laws of Porto Rico. BiblioBazaar, LLC; 2009. ISBN 9781110953011. (originally published in 1916)
 * United States. War Dept. Puerto Rico Census Office; Henry Gannett; Walter Francis Willcox. Report on the census of Porto Rico, 1899. Govt. Print. Off.; 1900.
 * Puerto Rico; Spain; United States. Army. Dept. of Porto Rico. Laws, ordinances, decrees, and military orders having the force of law, effective in Porto Rico, May 1, 1900: Letter from the secretary of war transmitting, in response to the inquiry of the House of representatives, laws and ordinances of and military orders and decrees affecting Porto Rico. Govt. print. off.; 1909.
 * And I found this:
 * Patricia Gherovici. The Puerto Rican syndrome. Other Press, LLC; 2003. ISBN 9781892746757. p. 140.
 * which says, "... One of the first actions in U.S. colonial policy was to change the name of the island from Puerto Rico to Porto Rico. ... The official new name was a straightforward derivation from a common designation for the island in nineteenth-century English. ... Nonetheless, as Nancy Morris (1995) notes, the change in name was produced by an official misspelling, one may say, by an official parapraxix. "A curious oversight in the drafting of the Foraker Act caused the name of the island to be officially mispelled. The law established a civil government for the island of 'Porto Rico.' In writing the bill, Congress followed the spelling in the English text of the Treaty of Paris, the document through which Spain had ceded the island to the United States" This continues on to p.141, where it says, "... Even though the official designation Porto Rico was changed back to Puerto Rico in 1932, ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see Notes on 48 U.S.C. § 731 : US Code - Notes, Findlaw.com, which says in part,
 * I see that this information is present in the History of Puerto Rico article, though without cited supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The information is already covered in the History of Puerto Rico, which this article links to. In the context of Puerto Rican history, I don't see the importance of including this detail in the main article, WP:UNDUE comes to mind. --Jmundo (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This name issue is so trivial as to be totally insignificant, yet there are folks willing to devout time to this insignificant endeavor! I remind such group that this Talk Page is "for discussing improvements to the Puerto Rico article, and it is not a forum for general discussion" such as this! Anyone wanting to make a real contribution to Puerto Rico-anything around here, needs to go HERE instead! My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I've taken the time to dig up and to provide info above, with supporting sources, to put this to rest. I think my having spent the time to do that has been potentially useful. Re perceived triviality of the info, I have personally wondered about the "Porto" vs. "Puerto" naming for several years, but I haven't taken the time to run down the details until now. As for whether it needs to be in this article, if the "Porto" name were used in the article body I'd say that inclusion would be merited to mitigate potential confusion. As it is, the "Porto" naming currently only appears in the titles of some cited sources (still potentially confusing, but less so). I think a cite-supported explanatory footnote ref'd from instances of usage of the "Porto" naming might be useful, but won't boldly insert one. WP:Consensus here should decide that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, at least this one thing IS clear: no offense but, imo, this issue has not been put to rest!
 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Just found this very recent and interesting article, http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Puerto/Rico/artificios/nominales/nacion/Estado/elpepuint/20100819elpepuint_8/Tes from El País. First time I hear that the Real Academia Española, since the mid 1800's, long before US sovereignty over PR, referred to Puerto Ricans as "portorriqueños", rather than "puertorriqueños". El País doesn't appear to consider the issue of Porto/Puerto exceedingly trivial. Pr4ever (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the last post is important. There is a distinction between the Island's name, Puerto Rico, and the deonym of its people, Porto Ricans. This comes directly from the Spanish which also distinguishes Puerto Rico (la ísla)and portorriqueño (el pueblo). Example: EN: I am a Porto Rican from Puerto Rico. SP: Yó soy portorriqueño de Puerto Rico. SP Taíno: Yó soy boricua de Borinquen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.180.37 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Edit to PDP Description
Under "Government and Politics," I noticed the following text:


 * The Popular Democratic Party (PPD) seeks to maintain the island's "association" status as a commonwealth, improved commonwealth and/or seek a true free sovereign-association status or Free Associated Republic, and has won a plurality vote in referendums on the island's status held over six decades after the island was invaded by the U.S.

The wording of this sentence is biased is three ways:

(1) "True free soveriegn-association" implies that the status quo is not a truly free arrangement, while in fact it is only objectively fair to say that Puerto Rico's relationship to the United States is unlike relationships sanctioned by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

(2) "Has won a plurality vote" casts the PPD as being somehow superior to rival parties such as the pro-statehood NPP, even though they boycotted this vote (which occurred at this point more than fifty years ago).

(3) While it is undeniable that Puerto Rico was invaded by the U.S., the use of the term in this context is misleading, casting a sense that the island was self-governing until invaded as part of U.S. colonization rather than the reality (i.e. the U.S. invaded Puerto Rico to fight occupying Spanish colonial troops).

Puerto Rico's status within both the sphere of U.S. influence and the broader world is a legitimate subject of debate. But the goal of the italicized sentence should be to briefly state the PDP's platform, not serve as a pep rally for its advocates. I therefore propose the following alternate language:


 * The Popular Democratic Party (PPD) seeks to maintain the island's "association" status as a commonwealth, while reserving the right to better define certain aspects of Puerto Rico's relationship to the U.S. government.

Thoughts?

Jsamans (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How about...


 * The Popular Democratic Party (PDP) is the only one to believe that a 'commonwealth' political status, distinct from 'territorial status', emerged upon the proclamation of the Constitution of Puerto Rico in 1952, and supports its permanence and possible 'enhancement'. 


 * Neither the NPP nor the PIP believe that the current status is other than territorial status. Pr4ever (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is just a drive-by comment, but I'd say that if "the only one to believe" is not supported by a cite, it needs to be changed to "believes" (and, of course, that assertion would also need support). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Demographics section
The part on the democraphics of Puerto Rico fails to include additional information. Such as race during the migration wave. The study focuses on women in New York, not in Puerto Rico. The sample is therefore flawed and should not be included as an indicator or the Puerto Rican population as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.15.117 (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

91% Lies
No less than 91% are making a false statement about their race in the Census of 2000 in Puerto Rico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.189.240 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some may well be doing this unwittingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.189.240 (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to know how the majority are "white"(caucasian) when the genetics show without a doubt that the majority are almost equally mixed Amerindian-caucasian with a little African. Any ideas?


 * A quick look at the Race and ethnicity in the United States Census article led me to this source at census.gov, which says, in part, "Race is a self-identification data item in which respondents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is being "Caucasian" a genetic trait or a visual one? In the 2010 census, Section 8 asks the question "Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?" of which I would select "Yes, Puerto Rican". Section 9 then goes on to say "What is Persons 1's race?". First option is "White". Now, IMO, I can almost guarantee that a fair skinned Puerto Rican goes through all of the Options before considering the option "White" (like I did). I understand that the Census needs to be simple to read and that not everyone in the US understands the word Caucasian, but the Term "White" includes some historical racial connotations that some don't identify with. Now this is because I know my American history and understand and am cautious of these racial overtones as most Americans are. Now the Reason I believe the statement of 91% white is not accurate is because the Bilingual/Spanish version of the Census has the term "Blanca", which is the literal translation of "white". You see, in Puerto Rico, we only compare ourselves to other Puerto Ricans. So a fair-skinned Puerto Rican, which would not be "white" by American standards, says to himself: "Well, I am lighter skinned than most everyone else on the Island." And thus Select "Blanca". As for me, I see the other options: Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian/Chamorro, Samoan, Filipino, Chinese, etc... and I select "Some other Race - Print Race -> Puerto Rican".  QuAz  GaA  13:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Statehood or Independence
That 4th option is riduculous for a second vote, as it is already voted in the first vote. That´s a FRAUD. The option should be clear: INDEPENDENCE or STATEHOOD.--88.23.26.56 (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Jones Act of 1920 add 22 percent on shipping cost on Puerto Rico as per the U.S. International Trade Commissions.
I think that this information should be add at least a note on the economic section of this article, Jones Act of 1920 add a 22 percent on shipping cost to Puerto Rico as per the U.S. International Trade Commission.

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN INTRODUCES OPEN AMERICA’S WATER ACT to fully repeal Merchant Marine Act of 1920 June 25, 2010

McCain statements
"McCain Seeks Jones Act Repeal" Joseph Bonney | Jun 25, 2010 8:56PM GMT The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story
 * Arizona senator cites Gulf oil spill, says law hurts consumers
 * Sen. John McCain introduced legislation to “fully repeal” the Jones Act, which he said is preventing non-U.S.-flag vessels from helping clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The Arizona Republican said the 1920 law, which restricts domestic waterborne transportation to U.S.-flag, U.S.-owned ships crewed, built and owned by Americans, “hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers.”


 * McCain said the law restricts shipping and raises costs to consumers in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and Guam. He cited a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission Study that suggested Jones Act repeal would cut shipping costs in those markets by 22 percent.:He criticized the Obama administration for failing to temporarily waive the Jones Act to allow foreign-flag vessels to help with the cleanup from the BP rig explosion in the Gulf.


 * “Within a week of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations, offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing oil spill debris, and as of June 21, the State Department has acknowledged that overall, ‘it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.’ However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not permitted in U.S. waters,” McCain said.


 * The Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a lobbying group representing Jones Act carriers, shipyards and dredgers, quoted the National Incident Command as saying that “no waivers of the Jones Act … have been required, because none of the foreign vessels currently operating as part of the BP Deepwater Horizon response has required such a waiver.”


 * The group said the State Department reported that offers from Mexican skimmers, Norwegian skimming systems and other assets from Canada, Germany and the Netherlands, have been accepted for work in international waters beyond three miles from shore. The cabotage task force said that if foreign-flag vessels are needed for cleanup within domestic waters, it would not oppose waivers to the Jones Act.

John McCain Introduces Legislation to Repeal the Jones Act posted at 8:31 pm on June 24, 2010 by Howard Portnoy Reference: John McCain Introduces Legislation to Repeal the Jones Act


 * Obstructionist has become one of Barack Obama’s favorite epithets, one that he hurls with alacrity at any Republican who opposes his radical agenda. When it comes to the Gulf oil leak, however, the man most deserving of that pejorative label is the president himself. Earlier this week, he shut down the dredging operation off the Gulf coast that was a first step toward implementing protective sand berms that would protect the coastline from the encroaching oil.


 * Last week Obama’s obstructionism took the form of refusing to waive the Jones Act, which was tantamount to rejecting offers of help with the cleanup from contractors in possession of some of the world’s most state-of-the-art oil skimming equipment. The reason for Obama’s reticence? The contractors in question were foreign. Waiving the Jones Act, which would allow non-U.S.-registered vessels entrée to American waters, would jeopardize the president’s tight relationship with labor unions, who favor the Jones Act and the protections it affords their members by excluding outside competition.


 * Now, mindful that with each passing day the amount of oil spewed into the Gulf increases, those obstructionist Republicans have decided that if president won’t do his job, they will do it for him. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), backed by several other senators, has introduced legislation to repeal the antiquated law, not just for time being but once and for all.


 * The bill, titled the Open America’s Waters Act, notes that the Jones Act hinders free trade and raises both shipping costs and the concomitant cost of goods passed on to the American consumer. In its most immediate form, of course, the law would expedite efforts to clean the badly polluted waters of the Gulf and speed up their restoration.

 SENATOR JOHN McCAIN INTRODUCES OPEN AMERICA’S WATER ACT Merchant Marine Act of 1920 June 25, 2010

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN INTRODUCES OPEN AMERICA’S WATER ACT June 25, 2010

“Today I am pleased to introduce legislation that would fully repeal the Jones Act, a 1920s law that hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers. Specifically, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between waterborne ports of the United States be carried by vessels built in the United States and owned and operated by Americans. This restriction only serves to raise shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers less competitive and increasing costs for American consumers.

“This was highlighted by a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission economic study, which suggested that a repeal of the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by approximately 22 percent. Also, a 2002 economic study from the same Commission found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Since these studies are the most recent statistics available, imagine the impact a repeal of the Jones Act would have today: far more than a $656 million annual positive welfare impact – maybe closer to $1 billion. These statistics demonstrate that a repeal of the Jones Act could prove to be a true stimulus to our economy in the midst of such difficult economic times.

--Seablade (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)“The Jones Act also adds a real, direct cost to consumers – particularly consumers in Hawaii and Alaska. A 1988 GAO report found that the Jones Act was costing Alaskan families between $1,921 and $4,821 annually for increased prices paid on goods shipped from the mainland. In 1997, a Hawaii government official asserted that ‘Hawaii residents pay an additional $1 billion per year in higher prices because of the Jones Act. This amounts to approximately $3,000 for every household in Hawaii.’” “This antiquated and protectionist law has been predominantly featured in the news as of late due to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Within a week of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations, offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing oil spill debris, and as of June 21st, the State Department has acknowledged that overall ‘it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.’ However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not permitted in U.S. waters. “The Administration has the ability to grant a waiver of the Jones Act to any vessel – just as the previous Administration did during Hurricane Katrina – to allow the international community to assist in recovery efforts. Unfortunately, this Administration has not done so.

“Therefore, some Senators have put forward legislation to waive the Jones Act during emergency situations, and I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation. However, the best course of action is to permanently repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order to spur job creation and promote free trade.”

Reference: SENATOR JOHN McCAIN INTRODUCES OPEN AMERICA’S WATER ACT June 25, 2010

View Bill

Reference: Open America’s Waters Act Bill

--Seablade (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

United Nations Decolonization Committee resolution on Puerto Rico (June 2010)
The United Nations Decolonization Committee approved a resolution last month calling on the USA to expedite a process that would allow Puerto Rico to exercise their right to self-determination and independence, asking also the General Assembly formally to consider the political situation of Puerto Rico. Reference UN official website Puerto Rico - UN Decolonization Committee, 21 June 2010. --vertical (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, the typically swift action of the UN. Didn't COngress approve a referendum several weeks before that? Should we expect the US's resolution on the UK's colonization of Canada, and Austalia by the end of the year? - BilCat (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Self-governing"?
Does "self-governing" mean that:

1-the Puerto Rico government can provide a 40-year operating concession of LMM Airport without FAA approval?

2-Puerto Rico can finish building the bridge that connects the island of San Juan with the Condado without the EPA's authorization?

3-the PR govt. can build a small pier in Boquerón without the US Army Corps of Engineers permission?

4-the Department of Transportation can change a bulb in a traffic light that doesn't conform to federal traffic light regulations?

5-the PR Tourism Company can finance a hotel that does not have federally-mandated sprinklers?

6-Puerto Rico can license vehicles that do not conform to US DOT standards?

Puerto Rico is not self-governing. It does not participate in the rule-making process of matters that go far beyond the minimum necessary to preserve the federal government's "sovereign rights", (see Autonomy), and affect virtually everything in Puerto Rico. That is not "self-government". The reference to "self-governing" is inaccurate and unnecessary in the introductory paragraph of this article. Pr4ever (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll need some direct sources to support your claims as your "list" is OR, and WP articles cannot be used as references. Btw, if PR doesn't want that kind of interference, don't chose statehood: It's not any better for states, and probably a lot worse! - BilCat (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't attempt to source it because it's simply a talk-page observation on the inaccuracy of the phrase used in the article. Actually, it's the phrase "self-governing" in the article that's unsourced and is a very much debated and unsettled issue in Puerto Rico.  A majority of Puerto Ricans-including NPP and PIP voters-believe we're not self-governing under the present relationship.  Nevertheless, thanks for your comment! Pr4ever (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To BilCat,If we were a state, we'd have representation in congress, which is better than the current situation which is not logically "self-governing". I would like you to expound on your Implication that it would be worse for the US if PR became a state...... Quazgaa (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC).

I think Pr4ever's point was that the phrase should be eliminated. I, too, believe it should be eliminated, as it is not accurate: it can be interpreted differently by diferrent people, as well as by different peoples. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Puerto Rico is self governing since 1952 with it's own constitution, was taken out of the non self governing country/territory list in 1953 by the UN (US still has three unincorporated non self governing territories: Guam, Virgin Islands and American Samoa). Non self governing countries/territories - UN--vertical (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the definition of "self-governing" is different as understood by the U.S. and as understood by the U.N. If so, and if differences between  the two definitions can be clarified and supported, perhaps this article should include information about that.  Towards that end, this and this may be useful.


 * If Puerto Rico is self-governing since 1952, can the Legislature pass a law stating that cigarettes without the Surgeon General's warning may be sold in Puerto Rico, for example? This should not be a debate about theoretical nomenclature, but practical realities.  PR is not self-governing, and the mere fact we're debating this suggests that the use of such an uncategorical description in the first paragraph of the article violates NPOV. Pr4ever (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI to vertical, I think the article speaks for itself when stating: "In 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice.". Thus, IMO, self-governing by any normal definition does not apply here, and by deduction, I would disagree with this definition on WP. (see Reference 50 of the article).Quazgaa (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with user Wtmitchell above that the definition of self-government is different for the U.S. and the UN. While, it is a fact the UN Decolonization Committee is calling on the US to accelerate the process of self-determination for Puerto Rico, it is also a fact the territory was de-listed by the UN from the list of non-self-governing territories. Thus the controversy. We should consider both extremes in order to be in compliance with WP:NPOV. As it stands now, these extremes are not taken into account in the lead section, yet the phrase "self-governing" is used there. It should be removed from the lead. Maybe we can expand on this controversy beyond what the article already presents on this. Maybe we could categorically explain that controversy exists as to its real political status, and include phrases such as self-governing, self-determination, autonomy, sovereignty, etc. One thing is clear, the phrase self-governing in the lead, by itself, with no explanation other than a wikilink to autonomy is not helping this -- especially when less that one month ago (on June 21, 2010) the UN Decolonization Committee passed a draft resolution calling on the US to expedite the U.S.'s work on Puerto Rico's self-determination (Draft Resolution Calls on United States to Expedite Island’s Self-Determination.). As such I have removed it from the lead until we can demonstrate a compelling reason why it must be included in that section. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The definition of self government is the same for the US or UN. Self government does not mean sovereignty, this term was clarified years ago in this article and the use of self government to describe Puerto Rico is clear (which is the same termed used by other encyclopedias as well)--vertical (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This controversy was resolved and a consensus was achieved years ago. Many wikipedians have worked hard on this page for many years, before erasing something from the lead please read past discussions. This issue was resolved many years ago in favor of the term self governing to best describe Puerto Rico's scope of autonomy in accordance with international law, Wikipedia also has an article on Non Self Governing Territories that clarifies this and many other terms in case you have confusion with the terms self governing and non self governing. See also http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/482879/Puerto-Rico --vertical (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Times change, so do people's views of their world, and so do certain definitions. It may have been resolved "many years ago" but as we can all see from the current trend of this Discussion, the same alleged feeling of before no longer seems to be around today's editors. Frankly, I don't think the whole things is a "show-stopper" for the article either way. Simply put, we have to go by today's consensus and it seems clear to me that today's consensus is not the same as the one of "many years ago". But, hey, not everything is lost yet; your point is well taken, and the Discussion is still open. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * I don;t believe that this ongoing discussion has concluded with a consensus to reinsert the "self-governing" phrase. Pr4ever (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If this discussion has been resolved before, then please cite it when you mention it vertical. This is very important in this discussion and for you not to reference it with a citation does not help anyone.  Also I would like to point out that self-governing is not the same as a Self-governing colony which is a more indicative definition for the Political status of Puerto Rico.  Autonomy, Politically, also refers to the self-government of the people.  As an example of  territorial autonomies are Wales, Scotland, and Ireland... Which have representation of the People.  So I don't think that PR falls in this basket.  The Basket it does fall in is a nonincorporated Territorial autonomy, which has no representation and clearly ,IMO, a disambiguation of Colony.  Also I will use Wikipedia as my primary source when saying that Puerto Rico is on the List of dominant sovereign states and their servient territories, and a current (example) of a Colony.  Whether it be "Unincorporated organized commonwealth of the United States", "nonincorporated Territorial autonomy", or  "self governing country/territory", They are all Political jargon created to distance the Colonial Power from the history of Colonialism.  Quaz  Gaa  02:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Look for the discussions in the archives. The CIA factbook on Puerto Rico states that In 1952, a constitution was enacted providing for internal self government Factbook. I have provided 3 references 1. UN list of Non self governing territories 2.Encyclopedia Brittanica which uses the term self governing and now the CIA factbook. I have not seen one single reason with reference why the term should be remove from the lead besides POV .--vertical (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * VERTICAL, just the mere fact that you have encountered opposition (never mind "so much" opposition) to your stance ought to be a hint to you that the term "self-government" is debatable, and thus did not qualify for entry into wikipedia in its current form. And I can see only two reasons why you may want to debate this issue further: (1)either you are not knowledgable about the facts, or (2) you don't -want- to be (i.e., you just prefer to keep the commodious, yet fallacious, belief that Puerto Rico's "self-government" label is not debatable). So let me address your points.


 * (1) On your "UN list of Non self governing territories" as a evidence of the self-government status of Puerto Rico, I invite you to read -yourself- the wikipedia article your are pointing out, for you seem to have missed the section on THIS, which, again, clearly attests to the fact that the "self-government" label was, has been, is, and continues to be a matter under dispute. Be sure not to miss keywords there like "achieved a status described by the administering country [aka, the colonizing power; aka, the USA]", and don't miss the introduction of the term "self rule" in that article.


 * (2) On your second source of support for your position, Encyclopaedia Britannica: Britannica is not a reliable source on this matter. Britannica, like Wikipedia, is a tertiary source of information. Per Wikipedia policy, you cannot prove or disprove information found in Wikipedia by using information from another encyclopedia (SEE POLICY HERE). I am puzzled you brought up Britannica as a source after so many years experience with Wikipedia policies. Check out my record: I have been around this place for less than a year. I would had expected much more from someone with a stay that spans the better part of a decade (SEE HERE)


 * (3) On your third source of support, tha CIA Factbook, No offense but it is considerably naive to believe the CIA Factbook is an impartial source on the disputed matter of Puerto Rico's "self-government". Exactly what can any reasonable person expect the US Government-produced CIA Factbook to say, that "In 1952, a constitution was enacted providing for ostensible control of Puerto Rico matters by the United States?" Please go back and review all the circumstances surrounding the 1952 development and be sure not to miss perusing what loads of authorities have said about the creation of the ELA. Try to keep an open mind (Just a suggestion; I am not convinced you will succeed in this part). I will happily share my sources with you if you agree to be open-minded about this.


 * Finally, though, I would had prefer not to end on a negative note, but your edit HERE leaves much to be desired. Not for the edit itself, but for the inflated accussation of "vandalism" you made on all of us fellow wikipedians via the Summary Note there. I had believed that all of us fellow wikipedians who had joined in this discussion -- including yourself -- had done so in good faith. I believe it was an undisputed fact that everyone here was attempting to work on good faith. For you to accuse everyone -or anyone- of us of vandalism for edits that were well documented via both, the use of the Summary Box as well (and principally) via this Discussion, is, imo, nothing short of detestable. In fact after that comment of yours, I am no longer sure we are all working on good faith.


 * To close, let me re-iterate my position once more: I am not disputing (neither refuting nor endorsing) the veracity of the label "self-government" (and no one here should for, by policy, this Discussion Page "is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."). What I am disputing is the correctness, usefulness, and wisdom of including that label in the article, and in particular in the lead; and I base my opposition on the fact that the meaning of that label itself is disputable. What I am disputing is also that, if that label must appear in the article, it should appear elsewhere (than in the lead) where it can receive the treatment that it requires, with all the various viewpoints presented there. This is what wikipedia NPOV policy states ("representing...all significant views."), and this is my position.


 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * May I add to everything Mercy11 has said that you should note that the UN's reference is to internal self-government, quite a difference from full self-government, and even that so-called internal self-government is debatable since, by (conceivably albeit unprobably) repealing Law 600 and the Constitution, Congress could determine "internal" matters. Pr4ever (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The label self governing is a fact. The UN General Assembly took Puerto Rico out of the Non Self Governing List in 1953 due to a change in status in 1952, this is a fact and not an opinion. The US voted in favor of this as well in the General Assembly. This resolution (748 1953) has not been revoked, Puerto Rico was classified as self governing due to a change in status in 1952 UN Trust and Non Self Governing Territories. The difference between a Non Self Governing territory like US Virgin Islands or Guam and a Self governing Commonwealth like Puerto Rico are many. To say that this is debatable from a POV does not change the fact that is stated above. So it is very misleading (and could be also a puerto rican political party POV) to take away the term self governing from the lead. This was already discussed in 2007 by wikipedians, Pr4ever was in the discussion and tried, like it is doing now, to take away the term self governing from the lead (see Archives 2007).--vertical (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since 2007, two important factors have been added:

1-it has geen clarified in this debate that the UN 57 years ago referred to "INTERNAL" self-government, not unconditional self-government, so "self-governing" is an out-of-context reference to the UN determination at that time.

2-in the most recent election, the PR electorate selected by the widest margin in 44 years a government that overwhelmingly rejects the notion that PR is "self-governing". Fully 37 of 51 elected representatives, 22 of 27 elected senators, 48 of 78 mayors, the congressional delegate and the governor reject that notion.

That controversial phrase has no place in the introductory paragraph to this article.

Finally, if you're going to continue fiddling with edits regarding this phrase, at least describe what you're doing in the edit summary. Pr4ever (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone tried in the past and failed, that means nothing. If it did, then we would have to downplay or throw out outright the (for instance) having gone to the moon because it was tried many times before but it failed (until it suceeded of course). So, no, "having tried in the past but failed" that is not a reason to invalidate anything having to do with whether or not the qualifier "self-governing" should be included in the lead.

I remind those with an oppossing point of view that no one here is arguing that Puerto Rico hasn't been labeled as self-governing by the UN. What is being said is that in addition to that fact there are other facts that need to be presented. The label "self-governing", by itself, solo, single, without qualification, etc etc etc (you get the idea), makes it a bad candidate to be included in the lead because it is so controversial. As part of an encyclopedia the article should answer questions, not create confusion. Stating that UN fact that is being relentlessly presented in this discussion over and over again, I do not believe is a problem to anyone. Yes, facts are what they are; but they need to be presented with equal room to all sides, and just throwing "self-governing" in the lead, without any qualification, is not the way to do justice to the reality that the term is a highly controversial one. Pushing for inclusion of just the term in the lead simply because it is what the UN labeled it over 50 years, while ignoring the fact that the label (read: status) continues to be a matter of debate in many international organizations, in most reasonable people's opinion, is my view, violates wikipedia's NPOV policy.

This matter can be brought to a conclusion rather quickly, imo, if it is agreed to have a statement or two summarizing the perspectives in this Discussion, later in the article, NOT in the lead. Forgive my frankness, but so far Vertical just does not seem be able to tell how the two sides are really not mutually-exclusive: they can both co-exist in harmony in the article. Vertical, I am convinced we (this side) understands your concerns, but do you understand ours??? I believe it would be beneficial if you worked some more at understanding the difference between what you are proposing and what this side is proposing; and attempt to look for common ground, so we can bring this to a satisfactory closing. Please don't duel in the past: things have a tendency to change over time - and that needs to be represented in an encyclopedia as well. Let's work together and bring this matter to a conclusion. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * I APPROVE Mercy11's consensus, non-mutually-exclusive proposal. Pr4ever (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the controversy, the UN has not revoked the G.A. resolution and there are many references that recognize this fact and include the term in the lead including the US gov. (see CIA factbook). By taking away the term you are misleading the reader into believing that Puerto Rico is a non self governing territory like US Virgin Islands, American Samoa or Guam and you are hiding a fact that gives clarity to the lead. --vertical (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Look vertical, I am not going to write a book here so that people that cannot see the controversy, can see it. There are many books already written on that and I, as well as others here I am sure, can point out a few good books for those who cannot see the controversy, to start seeing it. Yes, there are many references that recognize the fact that the UN has not revoked the GA resolution; but for every such reference that you can find, we will be able to find one reference to the controversy on this matter. Fact is, anyone who's not aware there is a debate on this matter at all levels, local, national, and international, is just not up to speed with what has been transpiring in the last 60 years. With that said, please don't go back to the CIA reference; that reference is getting stale. On the other hand, I hear you mentioning the UN as if it was the do-all and be-all in this matter, and that is fine. In fact, I could not commend you more for it. However, don't then forget to reference the UN when it comes to the fact that the debate in question has been ongoing within the UN as well. This is part of being Neutral, don't you think? And, while you are at it, do yourself a favour, please don't accuse anyone here of "hiding a fact", when for many moons already we have been volunteering to you to include this implied "hidden" fact that you are alluding to in any explanation of the "self-governing" status of Puerto Rico. In closing, let me clarify something, as you seem to be heading off for a new line of defense: we are not going to start comparing with Samoa, VI, or Guam. To do so, you would first have to establish that those governments or forms of governments at those places perfectly define what "self-governing" means. And finally, if you really believe the single phrase "self-governing" can "give clarity to the lead" as you say, then why are you so adamant about an explanation of the term "self-governing" being used elsewhere in the article? Certainly several statements stand a better chance at clarifying something than one single phrase, no? To end, here's something for you: HERE. Check out just pages 166-167. Hope this helps you in your search for the controversy, and hopefully after this we can work together to bring this matter to a conclusion. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * I was invited to express my opinion and therefore I will do so. The situation is that the term "Self-governing" in the case of Puerto Rico in my opinion is misleading. The fact is that regardless of the name of Commonwealth which Puerto Rico has assumed, the island is a colony of the United States with a fancy name. Puerto Ricans may have the right to elect their public officials but, they are still subject to the Federal laws and agencies of the United States. An example is when the government of Puerto Rico once tried to establish some commercial trades with other countries and the U. S. did not permit them, therefore I believe that "self-governing" it is not. That is my humble opinion, but then who am I to know. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been invited to express an opinion, but I'll do so anyhow. In fact, I'll express several opinions. Opinion #1, the question of whether or not the characterization "self-governing" properly describes PR today, or whether it ever has properly described PR, is controversial within the community of WP editors. Opinion #2, WP editors with strong views about this question should read WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, then read WP:POV and WP:LEDE. Opinion #3, redo #2. Opinion #4, Read the lead sentence of WP:V. Opinion #5, reread it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Puerto Rico is no longer in the UN Non Self governing list (US Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa are still in the list because they did not have a self determination process or a new constitutional status, Puerto Rico did have that process which resulted in the 1952 establishment of the Estado Libre Asociado and it's constitution and constitutional convention voted by the people) makes it automatically self governing, it is clearly written in G.A. UN resolution 748 VIII 1953. There is no half way here, either you achieved self government or you do not, like the rest of the 16 territories which are still in the Non self governing list (UN website). I repeat once again, self government does not mean sovereignty, it means autonomy. I will leave several references that acknoledge this fact and i would like to hear serious reason or reasons why this important fact needs to be hidden from wikipedia readers who read the Puerto Rico article. 1 factbook US gov. 2. BBC BBC country profile 3. CBS country profile 4. UN list of former Non Self governing territories UN website and UN Resolution 748 VIII which declares: open quote (5)the people of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico have been invested with attributes of political sovereignty which clearly identify the status of self government attained by the puerto rican people as that of an autonomous political identity end of quote G. A. Resolution 748 VIII 27 November 1953 6. Encyclopedia Brittanica --vertical (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Allow me to analyze just one of your sources---what you call the "US Government factbook". You're linking us to the error-ridden, very unreliable CIA World Factbook.  That publication states that the current political party leadership includes: National Republican Party of Puerto Rico [Dr. Tiody FERRE]; New Progressive Party or PNP [Pedro ROSSELLO] (pro-US statehood); Popular Democratic Party or PPD [Anibal ACEVEDO-VILA].  Dr. Tiody Ferré has not been GOP State Chair for years.  The position is held by Carlos Méndez, the Mayor of Aguadilla.  Dr. Pedro Rosselló has not been president of the NPP for the past 2 1/2 years, and Acevedo Vilá resigned his party's presidency nearly two years ago.  So much for that source's accuracy.  The CIA publication only states that PR enjoys "internal self government", INTERNAL.  That's the CIA's opinion, not the Federal Government's policy making bodies and institutions.  So much for that source.  If you're going to quote that unreliable, inaccurate source, at least quote it right "internal self government", not "self government".  But, again, don't edit until and only a consensus is reached that such an inclusion is necessary in the lead and accurate.  That consensus has not been reached and this debate is far from over. Pr4ever (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, no one is trying to hide this fact, it is just not appropriate for the lead section unless the term is identified in itself as controversial. Your implication that this "important fact" is being hidden from this article makes me question whether you have read the discussion above.  Your assertion that the UN is the all encompassing authority that defines the term self-governing is simply flawed.  How can you say that Puerto Rico is self-governing, thus meaning autonomous? Then why is Puerto Rico actively seeking more autonomy?  That would suggest that there are levels of autonomy, some levels of which are being held back like a carrot on a string (If Puerto Rico becomes a state, they get to vote for president!).  Now can we call Puerto Rico Autonomous? NO. Autonomy means freedom from external authority, or one who gives oneself their own law.  Surely you cannot categorize Puerto Rico as autonomous in its current state? Thus your definition of self-governing becomes flawed, as is the UN's definition.  You see, the UN is a political body.  They follow the rules of politics.  It was controversial for Puerto Rico to be included in the UN Non Self governing list, therefore the US lobbyied, and may have provided some concessions, to have Puerto Rico removed from the list.  Thus using the UN as a source, for this specific issue, does not meet WP:ORS, because their actions on this issue were not objective.  What was the motivation for removal?  I have my theories, and it involves China's relationship with Taiwan, but that is for another discussion.  My point is that decisions by the UN may have some unobjective motivations that may not be obvious to the mainstream media.  Thus you can cite other sources which report on the actions of the UN, but it is still the UN's actions which remain to be not objective.  Now I hope you can improve upon the article, in your own way, as the Consensus here has made clear above, which is to "have a statement or two summarizing the perspectives in this Discussion, later in the article, NOT in the lead".  QuAz  GaA  01:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Esperanto
I have removed text that stated that:

" There has been effort to combat the influence of the English language. This includes spreading the neutral language Esperanto"

The Primera Hora newspaper cited to support those sentences describes a small effort in one eco-store to teach the basics of esperanto to a small group of people. In a population of almost 4 million, that hardly qualifies to source the phrase "spreading the neutral language". Virtually the only "anti-English" in the story is a reference to the fact that esperanto has no irregular verbs---English and many other languages do---and vocals have only one possible sound---vocals in other languages may be pronounced in several different ways. Thus, the artesanal teaching of esperanto to a few curious Puerto Ricans hardly qualifies as an act of "combat" against English or the "spreading" of the language. Pr4ever (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Freely Associated States" category
I suggest that we DISCUSS whether this article should be included in the Category:Freely associated states category, before determining whether to remove that category from the article or not. Pr4ever (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Delay of birth certificate law
The inclusion of information in this article about an LATimes blog item regarding one organization's request that Puerto Rico delay the application of a new birth certificate law is not relevant to this article unless some groundwork is previously laid. First, what law is the edit referring to? What problem does that law purport to resolve? What have other organizations of equal or greater stature said about the law (so as not to single-out one particular organization?)? Has the law been amended since the blog item was published? If so, then perhaps the information in the article is dated. I suggest a more complete, contextualized explanation of the birth certificates problem, law, amendment to the law, etc., if the issue is considered an important development. Pr4ever (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Official languages
For over a century, legally, Spanish and English have been the official languages of Puerto Rico. After a brrief period during Gov. Hernández Colón's third and last term when he signed a Spanish-only law, in January 1993, Gov. Rosselló signed Law #1 of 1993 which remains in full force today. Since then, over a dozen bilingual public schools have opened and expanded (the Cidra school, which opened as a K-6 institution, has expanded to K-12, for example), and several municipal schools which use English as the main language of instruction have also opened. Thus, it is incorrect to suggest that the teaching of English has diminished or that what is taught in schools determines the legal issue of official languages---it does not. Pr4ever (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Full list of criteria" -- original research?
The International status section says, in part, "But the General Assembly did not apply its full list of criteria to Puerto Rico to determine if it has achieved self-governing status.", but does not explain what those criteria are, does not list them, and does not supply a link to a list of those criteria.

I note at http://untreaty.un.org/cod/repertory/art73/english/rep_orig_vol4-art73_e.pdf that the U.N. Secretary-General addressed a letter to all Members of the United Nations on 29 June 1946 concerning the various immediate questions arising out of Article 73 e. In particular, he invited the Members to give their opinion on the factors to be taken into account in determining which were the Non-Self-Governing Territories. In their replies, some Members suggested a definition or criteria for a definition of the term "Non-Self-Governing Territory". Other Members expressed the opinion that it would be difficult to arrive at a definition applicable in all circumstances. (see paras 21-22) A General Assembly subcommittee agreed to note the list of Territories to which Chapter XI regarding non self-governing territories applied, but not to attempt a definition of the term non-selfgoverning peoples at that time. The subcommittee determined that Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands were non-selfgoverning territories administered by the U.S. (see para 23).

If a "full list of criteria" for determining the self-governance status of a territory does exist, a supporting source should be cited clarifying this. If such a supporting source cannot be cited, it appears to me that this assertion should be removed as original research. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From this source here on page 2 "Puerto Rico, originally conceived as a self-governing model of free association as a result of constitutional changes in 1952, was removed from the U.N. List of NSGT's in 1953 via General Assembly Resolution 748. This action removing that territory from formal NSGT status was taken however, some seven years prior to the approval of the internationally-recognized definition of free association as contained in Resolution 1541. 6/" So the list you refer to is Resolution 1541: "United Nations definition of what a colony is, and what self-determination is. Principles which should guide Members in determing whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter. "  Furthermore, it goes on to say: "The self-governing nature of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands vis a vis their respective commonwealth' arrangements with the United States has sparked increased interest from scholars due to the continual unilateral authority of the U.S. Congress to legislate for those 'self-governing' territories under the "Territorial Clause" of the U.S. Constitution which gives the U.S. Congress the right to "make all needful rules for territory or other property of the United States." ".  So the reason the UN did not apply the "list of criteria" is because it did not exist at the time.  I will change the tag of original research to cn until this discussion is resolved and we arrive at a consensus of reliable sources.   QuAz  GaA  11:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As you say, the reason the UN did not apply the "list of criteria" is because it did not exist at the time. I don't see the sense in changing the OR tag to a CN tag if the list which is asserted to not have been applied is acknowledged to not have existed at the time. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (added) I'm very rushed just now, so this will be quick. I've located a secondary source which characterizes GA resolution 1541 here, and the resolution itself here. It looks to me as if there are issues here which could be described better in the article. It also looks to me as if my separate points above are still valid. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The tag has been changed because a reliable reference has been identified that has disproved your assertion for removal on the basis of original research, which it is not. Does that not make your second point no longer valid?  Can these issues be better described in this article?  Yes. Should they? undue weight may be of a concern.   There are statements which include both viewpoints in the section.  Further expanding on an issue may create WP:NPOV concerns.  I think what is needed here is a proper citation added, and re-statement to better reflect these added sources.  QuAz  GaA  14:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I have boldly edited the assertion into a form which I believe can be taken as supported by citation of GA resolution 1541 (15 December 1960) as a supporting source, and have cited that and GA resolution 748 as supporting sources. I've just edited the assertion in place and cited those supporting sources. I think that this would be better if this were organized chronologically &mdash; describing the 1953 resolution, then describing the 1960 enunciation of principles, then describing post-1960 discussions and actions regarding those principles in re reporting of PR info. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well put Wtmitchell. I agree that there are some timeframe issues, especially in concert with the next paragraph, but overall it is IMO now a better article.   QuAz  GaA  01:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Birth Certificates Law 191 of 2009
U.S. Senate (Senator Lieberman) Fact Sheet

Puerto Rico Birth Certificates Law 191 of 2009

http://lieberman.senate.gov/assets/pdf/PuertoRico2.pdf

Puerto Rico Birth Certificates Law 191 of 2009 Fact Sheet Seablade (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In December 2009, the government of Puerto Rico enacted a new law (Law 191 of 2009) aimed at strengthening the issuance and usage of birth certificates to combat fraud and protect the identity and credit of all U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico. The new law was based on collaboration with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address the fraudulent use of Puerto Rico-issued birth certificates to unlawfully obtain U.S. passports, Social Security benefits, and other federal services. In the past, many common official and unofficial transactions in Puerto Rico unnecessarily required the submission, retention, and storage of birth certificates. As a result, hundreds of thousands of original birth certificates were stored without adequate protection, making them easy targets for theft. Subsequently, many birth certificates have been stolen from schools and other institutions, sold on the black market for prices up to $10,000 each, and used to illegally obtain passports, licenses, and other government and private sector documentation and benefits. As a result of this growing problem, approximately 40 percent of the passport fraud cases investigated by the DOS Diplomatic Security Services in recent years involved birth certificates of people born in Puerto Rico. This left Puerto Rico-born U.S. citizens vulnerable to identity theft, ruined credit, stolen Social Security benefits, and increased “random” security checks at airports, among others. Seablade (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved the section out of the Political Status section ... Birth Certificates have nothing to do with political status. Mercy11 (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking English in Puerto Rico
The information that says that according to the Census Bureau 7/10 of Puerto Ricans can speak English is out-dated. When I emailed the Census Bureau they said that in 2009, 9/10 of Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico can speak English. Please update that false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.19.186.170 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't know how the Census Bureau came up with those numbers other than bald-faced lying on the part of over half of the Census respondents; despite obligatory 12 years of obligatory english classes in PR classrooms, over 50% of the population is functionally incapable of carrying even a simple conversation in English (Lago, Latimer, Otero y Weaver, UPR, 1992). Samplings of urban and rural areas, a wide sampling of age and economic groups confirmed the numbers. Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups update
HOLA!! I was wondering how to fix the ethnic group section of the article the new ethic population estimate is 74.4% White or spanish origin 25% black or mulatto 0,4% Amerindian 0.2 Asian but we all know that puerto ricans are a mix of three cultures spain african taino and we should never forget that VIVAA PUERTO RICO!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjperez21 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.68.13.164, 12 December 2010
I would like for you to edit the amount of ethnic groups of Puerto Rico to Native American 61%,West or Central African 26.4%,European 12.6%. Because the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez conducted a study and it revealed that this is the correct population of Puerto Rico.This would be a big favor for alot of students looking up on wikipedia.Thanks :)

P.S. I found lists of the black ethnic groups of puerto rico on google.

Here is the list of all the ethnic groups:

Congo,Bantu,Igbo,Fon,Ewe,Popo,Mahi,Mandingo,Ashanti,Bambara,Baule,Fulani,Wolof,Mende,Fante,Akan,Bubi and Yoruba (or Lucumi)

make sure you include these in the list Thanks :)

75.68.13.164 (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Could you provide a link or full citation for the study? We need to be able to cite the new numbers. 23:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I see that this assertion also appears in Afro-Latin American. A supporting source was cited there, but it was a dead link. I fixed the dead link by citing an archived copy, but was unable to verify the assertion in the cited source, so I tagged it fv there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This request appears connected to the vandalism being perpetrated by User:Drtonyriviera. I think the edits he was insisting on adding are the same as what is listed here. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic statistics vandalism
why would anyone want to convey inaccurate data on the ethnical background of Puerto Ricans information taken from the CIA website shall not be contempt with Puerto Rico	 white (mostly Spanish origin) 76.2%, black 6.9%, Asian 0.3%, Amerindian 0.2%, mixed 4.4%, other 12% (2007) CIA World FactBook. Information taken from the study at the University of Puerto Rico in Mayaguez was from a study conducted in 1999 using the old genetic test which was not entirely accurate there needs to be a new test using the new Full Mitochondrial Sequence method, so the data posted as of now is inaccurate until further studies are done. remove the ethnicatal statistic data and revert to the original from the CIA website thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberte1898 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Government Infobox Template
The Infobox template Government section:

The accurate description is republic, republican or Presidential? Or any other option? --Seablade (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Twillisjr, 19 January 2011
Historically, Puerto Rico was directly involved in the Banana Wars. This information is found on wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_War along with several others. It is important to understand the United States' occupation of the island, as many Americans (including myself) strive to better understand their relations. It is my belief that the Banana Wars should demonstrate an important relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico at the turn of the century.

-TW

Twillisjr (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You need to explicitly state exactly what you want added to the article, along with the necessary reliable sources to support that information. While you may well be correct that this information should be included, it's up to the person who wants to make the addition to provide all of the details. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Census ethnic groups
Can I Update the census ethnic groups, I could cite it if you like — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDatGuy1 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Updated census ethnic group figures are needed. However, the need to comply with WP:RS. For example, the edits made HERE and HERE do not comply with the RS policy. The first comes from a self-published source (http://www.stewartsynopsis.com), and the second fails WP:V. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

CIA World Fact Book
The CIA World Factbook is repeatedly cited as a reference or source in this and other Puerto Rico-related articles. This source, however, is dated and unreliable. For example, it refers to Dr. Tiody Ferré, the widow of don Luis A. Ferré as state chair of the GOP in Puerto Rico, a position she held briefly after his death in 2003 (Aguadilla mayor Carlos Méndez has held the post for years), eight years ago. It also refers to former Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila as president of the PDP, a post he relinquished over two years ago and currently held by House Minority Leader Héctor Ferrer. The numerical information it provides about the makeup of the Legislature is totally erroneous.

Puerto Rico is not even under the CIA's legal jurisdiction, as it is chartered to operate in foreign countries, not in the United States.

While I frequently urge students not to discard Wikipedia as a source for their school research, I always admonish them to check the footnotes before using Wikipedia content, so as to make sure that a fact is backed up by solid research. I would not consider the CIA factbook as a solid source, at least with respect to Puerto Rico. As a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, I would not backup a statement regarding Puerto Rico with a reference to the CIA factbook. Pr4ever (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

VANDALISM IN THE ETHNIC MAKE UP Correct that, in the right side of the page because the data is from ETHIOPIA (oromo tribe etc)--88.18.149.212 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the Ethnic groups info in the infobox to conform it to the cited source. This looks like it was an earlier error by me; I'm guessing that a mis-click took me to the wrong page of the CIA Factbook and I failed to pick up on that at the time. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE PER CAPITA INCOME DATA According to the CIA income per head at PPP in Puerto Rico is just $16,000 (less than most Eastern European countries) and $23.000 at nominal prices.--81.34.137.109 (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Needed
Under the headline Spanish Colony Juan Ponce de León is referred to as "a lieutenant under Columbus, who later became the first governor of the island." and then at the end of the paragraph it lists Juan Ponce de León as a conquistador and then again mentions he became the first governor. I had to re-read the paragraph several times to ensure it was referencing the same person. One of the references should be removed to avoid redundancy.

Also, the text "Eventually, traders and other maritime visitors came to refer to the entire island as "Puerto Rico", and "San Juan" became the name of the main trading/shipping port." I think should be clarified to state explicitly whether the name "San Juan" is taken from Juan Ponce de León. T3mplar (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible Recent developments update
Possible Recent developments section update about the task force follow up.

"The June 14 presidential visit is being coordinated to occur with the first of a series of summits being organized by the White House Task Force on Puerto Rico to follow through on initiatives contained in its March report on the island’s economy, political status and other issues."

Reference: Obama plans Puerto Rico visit in June

President Barack Obama will visit Puerto Rico next month to commemorate the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s trip to San Juan, according to federal and commonwealth officials. The June 14 presidential visit is being coordinated to occur with the first of a series of summits being organized by the White House Task Force on Puerto Rico to follow through on initiatives contained in its March report on the island’s economy, political status and other issues.

While the report referenced plans to hold summits on public safety and education this year, the first summit will be devoted to economic development, which is shaping up as the No. 1 issue in the 2012 presidential campaign.

“President Obama is going to Puerto Rico on June 14 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s visit to the island. More details will be announced the visit gets closer,” said an administration official, who requested anonymity to speak in advance of official announcement.

A large Democratic fundraising event is also being organized to coincide with the trip, according to CARIBBEAN BUSINESS sources.

Both Gov. Luis Fortuño and Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi confirmed Obama’s trip.

“I know the intention of President Obama is to demonstrate once more to the Puerto Rican people that he identifies with us, with our causes, and with our aspirations and that he wants to help us confront the social and economic challenges we face,” Pierluisi said.

“I am sure that he will take advantage of this trip to endorse the recent report by the White House Task Force on Puerto Rico and see first hand how we are benefiting from the initiatives of his administration,” the resident commissioner added.

Fortuño said he has been working with the Obama administration to make this presidential visit a reality from the early days of his administration.

“With this visit, President Obama has fulfilled a pledge made during the 2008 presidential primaries that he would return to Puerto Rico as president,” the governor said. “Puerto Rico is preparing for its first official presidential visit since 1961, when President John F. Kennedy was received with great enthusiasm and affection by our people.”

Obama has said that the report and its recommendations “provide an important road map to address the concerns and aspirations of the people.”

From economic development to political status, from increased federal funding to energy and the environment, the 112-page report by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status provides detailed proposals and recommended courses of action over the short and medium terms on numerous important issues.

Former President Bill Clinton established the task force in December 2000 to come up with recommendations on the island’s political-status dilemma, and former President George W. Bush continued its work. In October 2009, Obama signed an order expanding the task force’s scope to include, in addition to political status, job creation, education, healthcare, clean energy and economic development.

Obama traveled to Puerto Rico twice as a presidential candidate. As a candidate, he pledged to resolve Puerto Rico’s status issue during his first term in office.

Kennedy’s visit to San Juan actually took place in December 1961, and it was made as part of a trip to Venezuela and Colombia.

Since then, President Gerald Ford visited Dorado in 1976 to speak at the international G-7 economic conference.

Reference: Obama plans Puerto Rico visit in June --Seablade (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Population
Under the heading "Population", maybe it would be a good idea to tell the population? According to the CIA World Factbook: 3,989,133 (July 2011 est.). TIA. 173.57.24.154 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The article includes a lot of text about racial makeup and migration, two important sub-themes within demography, but fails to include text on population growth/decrease an important theme within demography and totally ignores the very important fact that PR is only one of two jurisdictions under the American flag (the other being Michigan) that actually lost population during the past decade, according to the 2010 Census. Pr4ever (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Add a supporting reference for the aforementioned data: 2010 U.S. Census Data

In addition is not mentioned the census data released on May 26, 2011 Puerto Ricans, the second largest group, comprised 9 percent of the Hispanic population in 2010 — down from 10 percent in 2000. The Puerto Rican population grew by 36 percent, increasing from 3.4 million to 4.6 million. Puerto Ricans were the largest Hispanic group in six of the nine states in the Northeast and in one western state — Hawaii, with a population of 44,000. Add Supporting Reference for the aforementioned data: 2010 Census Shows Nation's Hispanic Population Grew Four Times Faster Than Total U.S. Population

Or this information: On the one hand, the data already released confirms what Angelo Falcón, President of the National Institute for Latino Policy told us back in 2004: there are now more Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. than on the Island. The Census also confirms that Puerto Rico lost 2% percent of its population since 2000, a significant loss. We know, at this point, that most of those who left the island have come to live in the U.S., mostly to other Puerto Rican communities. But, we can also see that the Census will confirm that the Puerto Rican Diaspora is, well, more diasporic, i.e., more dispersed. It now appears that Puerto Ricans have followed the general pattern in the U.S. of internal migration from the Northeast and Midwest to points South and Southwest. Florida is now clearly the state with the second largest Puerto Rican population in the country. In addition, states like Texas, Arizona, and California are now among the ten states with the largest Puerto Rican populations in the U.S.

In terms of socio-economic factors, the 2010 Census is likely to reflect some significant gains for Puerto Ricans but also some troubling areas as well. Among Puerto Ricans in the U.S., there are probably more college graduates than ever, more homeowners and more who have moved into middle-class status. But these trends are probably going to vary from region to region. And while Puerto Ricans made national news with the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor, a second-generation Puerto Rican from the Bronx to the US Supreme Court, and José Acaba, the first boricua astronaut in outer space.

Add Supporting Reference for the aforementioned data: Puerto Ricans in the US and the 2010 Census: 100 years and still counting … A reflection

U.S. Census Bureau Delivers Puerto Rico's 2010 Census Population Totals, Including First Look at Race and Hispanic Origin Data for Legislative Redistricting --Seablade (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

America the Beautiful Quarters
America the Beautiful Quarters

The third year of the new circulating commemorative quarter series will begin with the El Yunque National Forest Quarter for Puerto Rico. This coin will be the first coin of the series to feature a site from one of the United States Territories. The scope of the program was written to include the territories and the District of Columbia.

Although the El Yunque Quarter will not be released until early 2012, design candidates have already been prepared by the United States Mint. Two of the designs highlight the natural beauty of the area with the depiction of a waterfall, while other designs focus on the animal life within the park. Both the CFA and CCAC who reviewed the designs thought it was more important to highlight the animal life, particularly the endangered species like the coqui frog.

Whatever reverse design is ultimately selected by the Secretary of the Treasury, the obverse will depict a portrait of George Washington. This image will be used for each release of the America the Beautiful Quarters series.

--Seablade (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

--Seablade (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cruzacalles, 12 June 2011
The goverment and Politics section, third paragraph states: "While residing in Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections, but they can vote in primaries. Puerto Ricans who become residents of a U.S. state can vote in presidential elections."

This statement alone is incomplete and therefore misleading. Full protection under the United States Constitution and the right to vote for the President of the united states lies solely on a citizen's residence within the country.

Therefore, first and foremost should be noted that: "United States Citizens that choose to reside in Puerto Rico do not vote in US Presidential Elections, but may register to vote in local Puerto Rican general elections and do not vote in local elections of their previous home states." Establishing a residence in a territory or a state is as simple as registering to vote at the local US Post Office and beginning to pay local taxes in that territory or state.

A resident of Puerto Rico may or may not retain the ability to vote in party primaries--provided that it is in accordance with the bylaws of the political party in question. Throughout US history, many political parties have risen and come to pass. Political parties are powerful civil organizations not directly and not an official government organization. Political party activities, like any other independent institution, are in fact regulated by federal and state laws. Currently both the Democratic and Republican parties at their own discretion provide for participation in party primaries and other events of US citizens residing on the island of Puerto Rico.

Inversely, citizens of the island of Puerto Rico do not vote in Presidential Elections as long as they choose remain island residents in order to vote in local elections in Puerto Rico. Once a citizen "

The must be a clear and expressed separation between Puerto Rico's political status as a territory and the rights of US citizens residing on the island. While Puerto Ricans may have become citizens by decree in time for the draft of World War I (all citizens of the western territories and subsequent states other than the original thirteen colonies are also considered to be citizens by decree)--anyone born in Puerto Rico since 1917 is a natural born US citizen.

Only two forms of citizenship exist: Natural born citiizenship and naturalized. In 1917 US citizenship was extended to citizens born

Hence, the constitutional rights that apply are affected by residence and not by birthright. This began to be resolved in the Gonzalez vs Williams case of 1904. This all important decision in favor of Puerto Rican as non-aliens eventually led to the recognition of Puerto Ricans as US citizens in the Jones–Shafroth Act of 1917 and other milestone decisions.

Cruzacalles 20:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Avic ennasis  @ 16:56, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Transportation Safety Authority -> Transportation Security Administration
In the following quote from the article: "Federal executive branch agencies have significant presence in Puerto Rico, just as in any state, such as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security, National Labor Relations Board, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Safety Authority, Environmental Protection Agency, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Internal Revenue Service, and Social Security Administration. The island's economic, commercial, and banking systems are integrated to those of the United States.[104]" there exists reference to the TSA but the name of the agency is incorrect. A google search for Transportation Safety Authority will autocorrect to Transportation Security Administration, the agency is the only one not wikilinked, and as far as I am aware there is no "Transportation Safety Authority" in the US. I believe correction is needed.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I made the change. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Twillisjr, 29 July 2011
In an effort to better explain the commerce of Puerto Rico, the US Department of Labor made minimum wage rates available here: http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

I believe it is important to add this data, especially as it is cited in a government report.

Twillisjr (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Would need to know more precisely what text you wanted added, to which part(s) of the article. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Twillisjr, 29 July 2011
CURRENT --- "officially the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Spanish: "Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico", [esˈtaðo ˈlibɾe asoˈsjaðo ðe ˈpweɾto ˈriko]—literally Associated Free State of Puerto Rico), is an unincorporated territory of the United States,"

CORRECTION -- The proper definition is "unincorporated dependent territory."

SOURCE -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_%28U.S._insular_area%29

--

CURRENT ---

"Education"

ADDITIONAL DATA --- In 2005, the United States provided $796,351,883 to the 	Puerto Rico Department of Education.
 * Other Data is Available when reviewing source*

SOURCE --

http://usaspending.gov/explore?&carryfilters=on&fromfiscal=yes&tab=By%20Prime%20Awardee&fiscal_year=2005&recipientid=50049&carryfilters=on&fromfiscal=yes&tab=By%20Prime%20Awardee&fiscal_year=2005&recipientid=50049&typeofview=detailsummary&vendor_state=PR

--

CURRENT --- "Spanish: "Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico", [esˈtaðo ˈlibɾe asoˈsjaðo ðe ˈpweɾto ˈriko]—literally Associated Free State of Puerto Rico)"

CORRECTION --

Incorrect. I was unable to locate any information or sources relating to "Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico." However, it is clearly stated in many places that Puerto Rico is NOT an "associated state." The island is clearly owned by the United States, and is a COMMONWEALTH.

SOURCE --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_state

--

CURRENT ---

Ethnic groups 	White (mostly Spanish origin) 75.8%, Black 12.4%, Asian 0.2%, Amerindian 0.5%, SOR 7.8%, other 3.3%

CORRECTION --

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 3,889,245, 98.7%

SOURCE --

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US72&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010

--

CURRENT ---

"Puerto Ricans had median household income of $18,314 for 2009, which makes Puerto Rico's economy comparable to the independent nations of Latvia or Poland.[158] By comparison, the poorest state of the Union, Mississippi, had median household income of $36,646 in 2009."

CORRECTION --

In 2009, 41.4% of families in Puerto Rico lived below poverty level. An astounding 45.1% of individuals were also recorded as living below poverty level. In comparision, the United States families living below poverty level in 2009 was 9.9% and 13.5% for individuals.

Ethiopia's population has a poverty rate of 39% which is lower than Puerto Rico.

SOURCES ---

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US72&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/ethiopia_statistics.html

Twillisjr (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Twillisjr, 29 July 2011
CURRENT ---

"The United States Congress legislates over many fundamental aspects of Puerto Rican life, including citizenship, currency, postal service, foreign affairs, military defense, communications, labor relations, the environment, commerce, finance, health and welfare, and many others."

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION --

Health:

In 2009, Puerto Rico's HIV and AIDS infection rate was rising significantly. Puerto Rico recorded 10,453 citizens living with AIDS, and 18,828 citizens living with HIV infection. The US Virgin Islands recorded 321 citizens living with AIDS, and 598 citizens living with HIV infection.

In total, Puerto Ricans infection rate of HIV and AIDS was a total of 18.5 infected citizens per 100,000, The US Virgin Islands infected citizens per 100,000 was 9.6 (nearly half). The United States has a rate of 11.2 cases per 100,000 citizens.

SOURCE --

http://www.avert.org/usa-states-cities.htm

Twillisjr (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done, for now, as this source has a very clear bias; I'd process this request if there was a good balanced independent RS like NY Times or whatever, but, with just this, it would need more agreement. If consensus can be shown here, please re-request.  Chzz  ► 20:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agüeybaná
on the last paragraph of Pre-clumbian in history, it's actually Agüeybaná III (3rd). I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure it's the 3rd. Crowned jester (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of a section on the trash issue?
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20100925/puerto-rice-garbage-100925/

There's numerous other sources

http://www.epa.gov/region2/cepd/solidwaste_in_puerto_rico.html

It's a major issue on the island and I'd like more attention brought to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.229.247 (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd actually propose a complete separate article, Waste disposal in Puerto Rico, because the subject is pretty well covered and sourced, and then add a few sentences of information in this main article. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

beach
the picture in vieques is red beach, or playa caracas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.232.72 (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sports Section
I wanted to note that in the Sport section that mentions Orlando Cepeda and Roberto Clemente as baseball hall of famers, there is now a third Puerto Rican who has been elevated to the Baseball Hall of Fame: Roberto Alomar, in 2011. His name should be added to the list. Sportingjim (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Done! --Seablade (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

2008 case, Why is undue weight?
Can explain, Why the following information is undue weight? This decision is jurisprudence; is law (the collection of rules imposed by authority).

As such, the ties between the United States and Puerto Rico have strengthened in a constitutionally significant manner. Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2255. Congress, thus, is no longer justified in treating Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory of dissimilar traditions and institutions, when the Constitutional reality is otherwise. Id. It is the judicial branch that determines when and where the full terms of the Constitution apply. Id. at 2259; see also Trailer Marine Transport Corp., 977 F. 2d at 8 n.4 (holding that the issue of extending the Constitution to Puerto Rico is for the courts to decide). The Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution.26 Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories — only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one. Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees. To hold otherwise, would amount to the court blindfolding itself to continue permitting Congress per secula seculorum to switch on and off the Constitution. Boudemiene at 2259.

Proposal brief to be include on the article: A 2008 case in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico declared (without overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories - only the Supreme Court can), that Puerto Rico no longer remain an unincorporated territory. The court says that although Congress has never enacted any affirmative language such as “Puerto Rico is hereby an incorporated territory,” its sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory. The court elaborated that the Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, (except for those provisions that relate to its federal character) and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated.

Reference:CONSEJO DE SALUD PLAYA DE PONCE, v. JOHNNY RULLAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

--Seablade (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I was the editor who objected to the inclusion of the MATERIAL from a lower court, the text above must be directed to me, so I will answer it.


 * There are two (intertwined) problems with the ADDITION in question: (1) the contents do not deal with the subject of the article directly ("Puerto Rico"), but with issues about one subject of the subject of the article (Political status of Puerto Rico), and there is an article already about that which this article points to, namely, (Political status of Puerto Rico). If anything that's where this sort of information would belong. However, --and this bring the second point I allude to above-- (2) the information is irrelevant both here (Puerto Rico) and there (Political status of Puerto Rico) anyway because (and I indicated this in my edit summary) in matters of the political status of Puerto Rico decisions of courts other than the U.S. Supreme Court do not matter. In fact, as you know from your own edit HERE, "The United States District Court is not a true United States court", thus lowering even further its capacity to rule on matters of constitutional law. Thus the undue weight.


 * According to the WP:UNDUE policy:
 * "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."
 * If we replace "Flat Earth" by "Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory of the United States", the point should be clear.


 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Answer:

On the District Court of Puerto Rico from Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 596, 524) v. U.S. (Supra)

In the course of the opinion it was declared by the U.S. Supreme Court (p. 352, L. ed. p. 186, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 1119):

"'Alaska is one of the territories of the United States. It was so designated in that order [referring to the order of this court assigning to the ninth circuit], and has always been so regarded. And the court established by the act of 1884 is the court of last resort within the limits of that territory. It is, therefore, in every substantial sense, the supreme court of that territory.'"

According to the web site of the U.S. Judiciary System, on September 12, 1966, 80 Stat. 764, the District Court of Puerto Rico became a Constitutional Court: “This act granted life tenure during good behavior to future appointments to the two judgeships for the District of Puerto Rico, thus placing the court in the same status as other U.S. district courts.” The importance of tenure is stated in GLIDDEN COMPANY v. ZDANOK ET AL. 370 U.S. 530 (1962): Tenure that is guaranteed by the Constitution is a badge of a judge of an Article III court. The argument that mere statutory tenure is sufficient for judges of Article III courts was authoritatively answered in Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 459-460: ". . . the argument is fallacious. It mistakenly assumes that whether a court is of one class or the other depends on the intention of Congress, whereas the true test lies in the power under which the court was created and in the jurisdiction conferred. Nor has there been any settled practice on the part of Congress which gives special significance to the absence or presence of a provision respecting the tenure of judges. This may be illustrated by two citations. The same Congress that created the Court of Customs Appeals made provision for five additional circuit judges and declared that they should [370 U.S. 530, 597]  hold their offices during good behavior; and yet the status of the judges was the same as it would have been had that declaration been omitted. In creating courts for some of the Territories Congress failed to include a provision fixing the tenure of the judges; but the courts became legislative courts just as if such a provision had been included."

In Balzac v. People Of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922), the court used, as an argument of non-incorporation, the following statement regarding the court in Puerto Rico: "The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court."

In Glidden, supra, the court made the following statement regarding courts in unincorporated territories: "Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 266 -267; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 -313; cf. Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 145, 149, and to the consular courts established by concessions from foreign countries, In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 -465, 480. 18"

The Article Three of the United States Constitution, establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. This constitutional article was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, and signed by the President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. From this moment on, judges appointed to serve on the Puerto Rico federal district court have been Article III judges appointed under the Constitution of the United States. In addition in 1984 one of the judges of the federal district court, Chief Judge Juan R. Torruella, a native of the island, was appointed to serve in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit with jurisdiction over Puerto Rico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire.

In September 12, 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed Public Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, which transformed the Article IV federal district court in Puerto Rico to an Article III Court. This Act of Congress was not conducted pursuant to Article IV of the Constitution, the Territorial Clause, but rather under Article III. This marks the first and only occasion in United States history in which Congress establishes an Article III Court in a territory other than the District of Columbia. From this moment on, judges appointed to serve on the Puerto Rico federal district court have been Article III judges appointed under the Constitution of the United States. Like their mainland brethren they are entitled to life tenure and salary protection. Senate Report 1504 reveals the reason for the enactment of this Law: There does not appear any reason why the U.S. District Judges for the District of Puerto Rico should not be placed in a position of parity as to tenure with all other Federal Judges throughout our judicial system. Moreover, federal litigants in Puerto Rico should not be denied the benefit of judges made independent by life tenure from the pressures of those who might influence his chances of reappointment, which benefits the Constitution guarantees to the litigants in all other Federal Courts. These judges in Puerto Rico have and will have the exacting same heavy responsibilities as all other Federal district judges and, therefore, they should have the same independence, security, and retirement benefits to which all other Federal district judges are entitled.

See 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2786-90 (emphasis added); see also Examining Bd. of Engineers Architects and Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. at 595 n.26 (“The reason given for this [law] was that the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico ‘is in its jurisdiction, powers, and responsibilities the same as the U.S. district courts in the (several) states’.”). This important change in the federal judicialstructure of the island was implemented not as a request of the Commonwealth government, but rather at the repeated request of the Judicial Conference of the United States. See Senate Report No. 1504, 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2786-90.

The District Court of Puerto Rico is now established under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Needless to say the District Court of Puerto Rico belongs to the First District Court in Boston. Is it possible to have a Constitutional Court in an unincorporated territory? No, according to Balzac and Glidden.

The proposal update is to be performed on the current sub-section called Political Status of Puerto Rico. By the way I do not have any issue on the path to reach a consensus to mention a clarification that this reliable sources on the subject is at this moment a minority view. (It is not a tiny minority view because it is Law). I invite you to you and\or other Wikipideans to suggest a consensus proposal. By the way, the most important part of the update is the following:

"It is the judicial branch that determines when and where the full terms of the Constitution apply. Id. at 2259; see also Trailer Marine Transport Corp., 977 F. 2d at 8 n.4 (holding that the issue of extending the Constitution to Puerto Rico is for the courts to decide). The Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution.26 Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories — only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place..." Regards, --Seablade (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

On the June 8, 2009 00:17 revision (LINK included) of this article I update the original phrase: ...the U.S. Constitution does not enfranchise US citizens residing in Puerto Rico.[42][43] with the following statement: ...the U.S. Constitution does not fully enfranchise US citizens residing in Puerto Rico.[42][43].

I can say for certain that the great majority of the U.S. Citizens in the States have the misconception that the U.S. Constitution does not enfranchise U.S. Citizens residing in Puerto Rico. Well, maybe a lot of people in Puerto Rico also have the same misconception. We should goes back to the incorrect statement of June 7, 2009? Of course not, this is an encyclopedia and Constitutional courts decision and U.S. Congress decisions and U.S. Federal Laws has a great reliable source proportion to the representation on the subject! --Seablade (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No offense but you are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Your statements above would constitute WP:OR if added to the article. Those facts are irrelevant; the fact that matters is that the information you are proposing to add in the article can be misleading to readers: the information added can be interpreted as proof that Puerto Rico is moving towards statehood because (in your allegation) Puerto Rico has become an incorporated territory. And, to prove your theory, you are using the opinion of the district court in Puerto Rico in a case involving Medicare payments. That opinion has no bearance of the political status of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is not an incorporated territory. When something to the contrary is said by a compentent authority, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, then such statements can be added to the article. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message


 * I have also perfomed THIS edit on the same subject, namely that Puerto Rico is now somehow an (incorporated) "part of the United States". There is no RS basis for this and the opinion of the district court in Puerto Rico acting on a Medicare case does not make it a part of the US. As the 3/11 President's Report says, both the President and Congress have a role to play to help Puerto Rico settle its status; the Courts (even the U.S. Supreme Court) is not included in the Report for these purposes. I remind everyone that on sensitive political issues like this one the best way to avoid POV is to add squarely from reliable sources that actually say something like "the report suggest etc etc ect", otherwise it runs the risk of WP:OR. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this messsage.

You are trying to personalize this! First of all, cease and desist to personalize this! It is not my statement, this must be clear it not OR it not POV it is not my statement; the statement was performed by an United States District Court in 2008! The court declared that the Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution! I do not have issues to mentioned the 1922 Supreme Court decision, My proposal is very clear and it is included the aforementioned proposal statement, you are assuming a lot of incorrect thing that I did not write. I always limited my updates to extreme reliable sources. On this case it is not the exception; the reliable sources used are the U.S. Congress Laws and the United States District Court decisions. This is not about your personal opinion or my personal opinion this is about the United States District Court decision that is law. That you do not like the court decision by your POV does not transform this on undue weight.

One additional thing, the territorial court created on the year 1900 by the U.S. Congress on Puerto Rico ceases to exist on 1966. The U.S. Congress transformed the territorial article IV court into an Article III Constitutional United States District Court by extending the article III constitution to the district. The United States District Court on the Puerto Rico jurisdiction born on 1966 and still in function today! The court created on the year 1900 adjourns on 1966! --Seablade (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement performed by an United States District Court in 2008 it is directly related to this article! The court declared that the Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution! This is a very reliable source I always limited my updates to extreme reliable sources. On this case it is not the exception; the reliable sources used are the U.S. Congress Laws and the United States District Court decisions. This is not about your personal opinion or my personal opinion this is about the United States District Court decision that is law. That you do not like the court decision by your POV does not transform this on an UNDUE policy violation. The article are just mention the court decision. It is not Undue weight mentioned a court decision related to the territories of the U.S. --Seablade (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As a side-issue to the UNDUE question, I'll mention the following here; I already mentioned this at this other talk page before I saw the note there asking that discussion continue here instead.


 * I note that the WP article on Gustavo Gelpí (the author of the opinion) says, "In his opinion, Judge Gelpi notes that his ruling doesn't override the United Supreme Court's Insular Cases."


 * Rather than citing the decision itself, or in addition to that, it would probably be useful to cite something like pages 821-824 in . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This District Court decision, while significant, is not entirely consistent with the weight of other authority. The article should contain a presentation of all the different views on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The article should contain a presentation of all the different views on this issue. The 2008 United States District Court decision, establishing that the Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, (except for those provisions that relate to its federal character) and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution has a significant weight on the issue. In addition, the 1942 express extension of the Privileges and Immunities Clause establishing that the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States by the U.S. Congress also has a significant weight on the issue. Nevertheless, the 1966 express extension of the Article III of the U.S. Constitution to the District of Puerto Rico Court by the U.S. Congress transforming the Article IV  territorial court created on the year 1900 on a Constitutional Article III United States District Court on the year 1966, the express extension of the Eleventh Amendment and the Dormant Commerce Clause by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the express extention of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, the  due process clause and the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme court has a significant weight on this issue too.

An additional point: The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of 1952., which preamble in part reads: “We, the people of Puerto Rico, in order to organise ourselves politically on a fully democratic basis, ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the commonwealth which, in the exercise of our natural rights, we now create within our union with the United States of America. In so doing, we declare: ... We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights and privileges; our loyalty to the principles of the Federal Constitution; ...

The Constitution was created "within our union" with the U.S.; with U.S. Citizenship and the enjoyment of its rights and privileges; and with loyalty to the Federal Constitution. This Constitution, which is a federal law, contains a ratification of the application of the United States Constitution to Puerto Rico and its citizens.

--Seablade (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE I have moved discussion information from two other articles (Talk:Unincorporated_territories_of_the_United_States and Talk:Territories_of_the_United_States) to this page, as it had been requested to editors at those pages in order to keep the discussion at one place only. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Consensus
On the way to finally reach a consensus I support Wtmitchell proposal of in addition to the United States District Court case, also cite something like pages 821-824 in. ! One clarification my proposal aforementioned at the beginning of this section already included the statement "without overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories - only the Supreme Court can),..." --Seablade (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the proposal taking shape would be less POV, but I would still hold this one point: Isn't the amount of space devoted to the political status issue in the Puerto Rico article too much as it stands already? This article spends a disproportional amount of space to the political status issue as compared to the other sections of the article, as well as compared to the other subsections of the Political Status section within that article. It is my view that any additional info not should be added at this location (that is under subsection "Within the United States"), and also that the whole 20-some paragraphs in that section there should be summarized into no more than 4 (like the others) paragraphs, maybe 5.

As there is already an article dedicated to the status issue (namely, Political status of Puerto Rico, PSPR), and as the article that is the subject of this discussion (i.e., Puerto Rico) already has a Main Article hatnote pointing to the PSPR article, it seems common sense to me to add any additional information related to the PSPR issue not into this article but into the PSPR article. I also bring this up because in this case the weight of this district court opinion is not comparable to the weight of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Based on this approach, I have put the following together for adding to the PSPR article (as 2.4 under Status questions), written in such a way that all views are covered:


 * In a 2008 case, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States, and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. The District Courts position, however, is not without critics, and Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux argues the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, it is questionable that the alleged “incorporation” would actually lead to statehood, and because it undercuts a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination.

With that text plus the citations provided, the reader gets an overview of the District Court's position, while giving other different views a chance to be exposed as well. IMO, it is not necessary to redundantly add the information about the PR District Court other articles, such as Territories of the United States and Unincorporated territories of the United States. Mere additions under their respective "See also" sections do suffice. (i.e., See also...Political status of Puerto Rico).

For completeness sake, I present below what I see as a weighted summary of the existing subsection named "Within the United States". If there are any parts in such subsection not found in the PSPR article, they would be moved over (again, I have written it so only the significant points are covered).

"Within the United States" Puerto Rico is an "unincorporated territory" of the United States which according to the U.S. Supreme Court's Insular Cases is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States."

Constitutionally, Puerto Rico is subject to the Congress' plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. federal law applies to Puerto Rico, even though Puerto Rico is not a state of the American Union and their residents have no voting representation in the U.S. Congress. Like the States of the American Union, Puerto Rico lacks "the full sovereignty of an independent nation," for example, the power to manage its "external relations with other nations," which was retained by the Federal Government. The Supreme Court has indicated that once the Constitution has been extended to an area (by Congress or the Courts), its coverage is irrevocable. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say "what the law is.".

Puerto Ricans "were collectively made U.S. citizens" in 1917 as a result of the Jones-Shafroth Act. , yet they cannot vote for the U.S. president. Since Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory (see above) and not a U.S. state, the United States Constitution does not fully enfranchise US citizens residing in Puerto Rico. (See also: "Voting rights in Puerto Rico"). Despite their American citizenship, however, only the "fundamental rights" under the federal constitution apply to Puerto Ricans. Various other U.S Supreme Court decisions have been held opinions on which rights apply in Puerto Rico and which ones do not. Puerto Ricans have a long history of service in the U.S. armed forces and, since 1917, they have been included in the U.S. compulsory draft whenever it has been in effect.

Though the Commonwealth government has its own tax laws, Puerto Ricans are also required to pay most U.S. federal taxes, with the major exception being the federal personal income tax. In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury. Residents of Puerto Rico pay into Social Security, and are thus eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. However, they are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the island actually receives a small fraction of the Medicaid funding it would receive if it were a U.S. state. Also, Medicare providers receive less-than-full state-like reimbursements for services rendered to beneficiaries in Puerto Rico, even though the latter paid fully into the system.

In 1992, President George H. W. Bush issued a memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This memorandum directs all federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a state, insofar as doing so would not disrupt federal programs or operations. Federal executive branch agencies have significant presence in Puerto Rico, just as in any state, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security Administration, Social Security Administration, and others. While Puerto Rico has its own Commonwealth judicial system similar to that of a U.S. state, there is also a federal district court in Puerto Rico, and Puerto Ricans judges have served in that Court and in other federal courts on the mainland regardless of their residency status at the time of their appointment. Puerto Ricans are also regularly appointed to high-level federal positions, including serving as United States Ambassadors. ''

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Trying to use the same neutral wording used on the journal provided by Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) as secondary reference and avoid any kind of Original Researched or Point of view, this is my consensus proposal.

Proposal must be Strict to the secondary reliable source reference wording. Avoiding any kind of minimal perception of OR or POV.

Proposal: Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories—only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one. Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees. The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. Importantly, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico., While Rullan’s significance is still unclear, the opinion’s approach and treatment of existing law is questionable and Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to the result that the Rullan court postulates. While much has been said about Congress’s plenary power over unincorporated U.S. territories, it is unclear whether Congress would have any less power to act within an incorporated territory such as those en route to statehood, than an unincorporated territory., and because it undercuts a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination.
 * In a 2008 case, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States, and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. The Puerto Rico District Court concluded with a cautious observation:

About the other updates that you are proposing now, I feel some kind of abusive or rudeness behavior, trying to eliminate more than three years of a delicate consensus approach by a lot of well sourced information provided by a lot of Wikipedia’s editors on just one day and by one Wikipedia editor. Let stay the rest of the article just as is with the current consensus established before initiated this talk page section discussion!

Wtmitchell I will really appreciate your assistant to reach a final consensus here, I think that we are near to reach a final consensus for your assistant providing a secondary reliable source!

Thank you, --Seablade (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a lot to say about this. Apart from minor points of formatting, the one thing which caught my eye was the credit for this ref by name to to its author, Adriel I. Cepeda Derieu. That brings to mind the question, "Who??". I'm not sure how much weight and prominence this deserves but this inline crediting seems, to me anyhow, to diminish that unduly. I'd be more comfortable with something like "it has been opined that ..." or "an article in the Columbia Law Review said ...", with a link to the article credited to the author in the footnoted cite. Incidentally, see . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wtmitchell recommendation!

Well, about the undue weight claim, The United States District Court decision is considered significant by Newyorkbrad and noteworthy for several reasons by the article in the Columbia Law Review. The Columbia Law Review ranks third for submissions and citations within the legal academic community, after the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal. --Seablade (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to undo or delete the statement performed by Wtmitchell a Senior Wikipedia Administrator, that is his recommendation to an agreement! This is abusive and rudeness behavior! --Seablade (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My error! I apologize for it; I used your initial proposal to create the second proposal! Must be an error of copy and paste your proposal on MS Word to generate the second proposal! However, delete a great part of the discussion was not the solution! --Seablade (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well to reiterate my proposal is used the Columbia Law Review article wording discussing the United States District Court decision and the presentation of the different views on this issue mentioned on the Columbia Law School journal.

I took the Mercy11 proposal and add the cautious observation wording of the Columbia Law Review aforementioned article used on page 824, add the wording of the article about to the proposal and of the three questionable issues I edited the second questionable issue to the wording used on the article. Also I add the following wording of the article: The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. Importantly, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico., While Rullan’s significance is still unclear, the opinion’s approach and treatment of existing law is questionable and the Columbia Law Review article argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons that is also on page 824:

And edit the second questionable item of the opinion approach and treatment of existing law to the same wording used by the Columbia Law Review article. The first questionable item and the third questionable item was keep just as is was presented on the Mercy11 proposal! --Seablade (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the final proposal is this one:

Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories—only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one. Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees. An article in the Columbia Law Review said the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. Importantly, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico., As per the Columbia Law Review article, while Rullan’s significance is still unclear, the opinion’s approach and treatment of existing law is questionable and argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to the result that the Rullan court postulates. While much has been said about Congress’s plenary power over unincorporated U.S. territories, it is unclear whether Congress would have any less power to act within an incorporated territory such as those en route to statehood, than an unincorporated territory., and because it undercuts a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination.
 * In a 2008 case, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. The Puerto Rico District Court concluded with a cautious observation:

Well, I will wait until November 30, 2011 to see if other Wikipedia's user has interest to improve this proposal! To ensure the most neutral possible wording, I used the same wording of pages 824 to 826 of the Columbia Law Review article on the proposal. --Seablade (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion sort of reminds me of what goes on with religions in this world. Everyone claims to be right and accuses everyone else of being wrong. Since there is a lot of legal mumble jumble involved, I have asked some one with legal knowledge, a Harvard graduate to look into it and to offer his opinion.Tony the Marine (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is what we are saying so far. Please object if I misunderstood. I have listed the various issues by number to make it easier to address: 1. It is agreed for the Puerto Rico article, section "Within the United States", to read as follows:

2. It is agreed that there will be a link to the Political status of Puerto Rico article under the See also sections of the Territories of the United States and Unincorporated territories of the United States articles. This link will take the place of the redundancy inherent in also adding the 2008 DPR case in those articles.

3. In response to Seablade's comment that

"About the other updates that you are proposing now, I feel some kind of abusive or rudeness behavior, trying to eliminate more than three years of a delicate consensus approach by a lot of well sourced information provided by a lot of Wikipedia’s editors on just one day and by one Wikipedia editor."

I provide this clarification:

(Note: The following mostly repeats a part of my recent message to Seablade left at his Talk Page HERE).

Let me explain that no material is being eliminated as I said in my comment HERE (in particular, where I stated "For completeness sake, I present below what I see as a weighted summary of the existing subsection named "Within the United States". If there are any parts in such subsection not found in the PSPR article, they would be moved over [to the Political Status of Puerto Rico article, as NEW section 2.4 under section 2, "Status questions"]  ). Maybe I did not make that entirely clear. To clarify further, the fundamental reason for the content move from the PR article to the PSPR article is that the PR article is falsely implying that the information under the "Within the United States" section is a summary of stuff found at the PSPR article). So my goal was already (as it seems it is Seabalde's) that nothing contributed by other editors would be eliminated. Not to be redundant but, as I said, what I am proposing is to summarize the section "Within the United States" (because it is overly long, in fact about 4-5 times longer than other sections) and to leave a hatnote (it has been there already) for the reader to click on. That way, readers who want further information and detail can get it thru the hatnote if the full text that was there is desired. IOW, nothing is missed. Yes, I know the information has been contributed by various editors, and, yes, I also know some of the information may have been there for years. But I also know that editors oftentimes contribute material yet fail to place it where it clearly best belonged or, equally inneffective, fail to "ease" it properly into the existing surrounding material resulting in a hodge-podge of sentences that are not cohesive. A better summary of teh section in question in the Puerto Rico and choice wording in the PSPR article augmented by the move of the non-summary information from the PR article to the PSPR article appears to be the best approach to enhance the quality of both articles.

4. It is agreed that the 2008 DPR case will be covered at the Political status of Puerto Rico.

With those 4 issues settled, it then appears that this leaves only the 2008 DPR opinion to be ironed out:

5. On the wording of the 2008 DPR case within the Political status of Puerto Rico article.

The 2008 case can be discussed in a NEW section 2.4 under Status questions. There are two proposals:

Here is the version I am Proposing (MERCY11'S VERSION)

Here is the version SEABLADE is Proposing (SEABLADE'S VERSION):

As Seablade's major concern appears to be what he calls the "second questionable issue" as it refers to the three objections in Bedraux's analysis of the DPR 2008 decision, I have reworded my proposal to accommodate that concern as well as various other miscellaneous concerns presented above. This bring us to this new version:

NEW PROPOSED VERSION :

Note that the above:
 * 1) Accounts for Seablade's concerns on what he calls "the second questionable issue"
 * 2) Incorporates User:Wtmitchell's note that we forego of the "Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux" inline reference and replace it with one reading "Columbia Law Review article" instead.
 * 3) Paraphases, rather than simply repeats verbatim, what the article states, this avoiding both burdening the reader with legalese and avoiding potential copyright infrignment, and yet accomplishes the informational goal at hand.
 * 4) As for the paragrapgh that starts with "Let it be clear", I excluded it for I find it entirely unneccesary. It is simply stating the obvious, so why even mention it?
 * 5) Presents all the different views on this issue, an observation by User: Newyorkbrad and others.
 * 6) Presents, in addition to the DPR opinion, the analysis at the article in the Columbia Law Review

If I overlooked anything, please say so.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * What I appreciate about this discussion, is that it is being conducted by people who demonstrate a great deal of concern for the issues involved - both the subtleties and the sweep of the issue. I believe this is appropriate (though admittedly tiring) because, in legal matters, a great deal often hinges on a comma, or the inclusion/exclusion of the word "not," or other such maddening technicalities. Ergo Shakespeare's famous dictum about lawyers.


 * Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan does provide federal precedent, and a framework for discussion and debate. However the Rullan ruling is not ultimately dispositive of a U.S. constitutional question or territorial status issue, since the U.S. Supreme Court is the court of ultimate (and binding) jurisdiction in both of these areas.


 * The language of the Rullan ruling did not grant full constitutional privileges to Puerto Ricans living on the island itself (as opposed to those living on the mainland). The Rullan court stated that "Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees."


 * However, as stated earlier, Puerto Rico is subject to the U.S. Congress' plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution.


 * The Rullan ruling occurred in 2008. Three years later (in 2011), insular Puerto Ricans have neither U.S. Congresspersons nor U.S. Senators, and they cannot vote for a U.S. president. Therefore insular Puerto Ricans are not fully-enfranchised U.S. citizens, and they have not been extended "enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the U.S. Constitution."


 * It is thus clear that (in the exercise of its plenary powers) the U.S. Congress has chosen to ignore the Rullan ruling.


 * The operative word in this discussion (and I understand the frustration on both sides) is the usage of the word "must" in the Rullan ruling. As forceful as that word sounds, it was mis-used by the Rullan court, because the U.S. Congress clearly ignored it.


 * Again...a lower federal court is not the court of ultimate jurisdiction for the issues addressed by Rullan. The U.S. Congress ignored it. Puerto Ricans (on the island) are not fully-enfranchised, and therefore do not have "enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the U.S. Constitution."


 * I hope this helps your process of consensus. I provided it in that spirit.Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to say thank you to all that are being involved on this discussion on the process of consensus! Nelsondenis248 I understand your point! I invite you to analyze the following U.S. Supreme Court Statements and jurisprudence in relation to territories incorporation declarations:

Florida Territory

In Dorr v. USA (195 U.S. 138, 141-142 (1904)) Justice Marshall is quoted more extensively as follows: "The 6th article of the treaty of cession contains the following provision: The inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. [8 Stat. at L. 256.] [195 U.S. 138, 142] 'This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government till Florida shall become a state. In the meantime Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.""

In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 256 (1901), Justice Brown says: "The same construction was adhered to in the treaty with Spain for the purchase of Florida (8 Stat. at L. 252) the 6th article of which provided that the inhabitants should 'be incorporated into the Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution ;"

As you can see the inhabitants of Florida were incorporated to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States with the principles of the Federal Constitution. However the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Florida Territory do not participate in political power; they do not share in the government till Florida shall become a State. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that in the meantime Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."

The definition of Unincorporated and Incorporated are initiated by the Supreme Court on an statement that the Treaty of Paris (1898) Article IX has a different wording that other treaties in relation to territories with other nations. For example the Spain Treaty with the U.S. Congress in reference to the Florida Territory has a different wording that the Spain Treaty with the U.S. Congress in reference to the Puerto Rico territory.

Eg. Treaty with Spain - Florida Territory The same construction was adhered to in the treaty with Spain for the purchase of Florida (8 Stat. at L. 252) the 6th article of which provided that the inhabitants should 'be incorporated into the Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution ;}}

Eg. Treaty with Spain - Puerto Rico Territory Article IX. Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside.

The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.  Reference:*Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain

The difference between the other treaties and the Treaty of Paris (1898) is the wording about the inhabitants of the territory: "inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determine by the Congress" vs. "the inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States."

As you can see there is a noticable different between incorporation into the union that refer to the inhabitants and admitted into the union as a State that refer to the land.

Other example, the U.S. Supreme Court Rassmusen opinion makes a distinction between the decision on the Philipines and that on Alaska: "“The treaty concerning Alaska, instead of exhibiting, as did the treaty respecting the Philippine Islands, the determination to reserve the question of the status of the acquired territory for ulterior action by Congress, manifested a contrary intention....”"

Contrary to the Philippines (and Puerto Rico), in Alaska the intention was to incorporate it by stating: The inhabitants of the ceded territory. . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion.' [15 Stat. at L. 542.] This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary."

In the case of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Congress ulterior action arrived on 1947 through the express extension of the paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States to Puerto Rico.

The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States.

Ending the clarification point, I will be evaluating the third consensus proposal, and I invite any other Wikipedia's user that would like to participate on this discussion to do it and help us on the process of consensus! --Seablade (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The second questionable issue on the Columbia Law Review read as follows:

The Columbia Law Review article said that the second questionable issue is that there is no different between an incorporated or unincorporated territory or, rather, merely its status as a territory. That the U.S. Congress would have exactly the same power over the territory and the last name of the territory to incorporated or unincorporated does not change anything in relation to the power of Congress over Puerto Rico. The second questionable issue begin this way: Second, there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to the result that the Rullan court postulates.

What the Rullan court postulate?

Rullan court postulate it is found, on the page 29 of the Court decision, and the postulate declared that a heightened level of scrutiny is available to protect the Commonwealth and its citizens from discriminatory federal legislation. through the incorporation! The Columbia Law Review said that this postulate is questionable! --Seablade (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I included the Columbia Law Review article; three questionable issues on the Talk page to simplify to other users contribute to the process of consensus! --Seablade (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: As there was no objection to the first 4 of the 6 points listed above, the issues in question appear resolved, with only the wording of the 2008 DPR case left to fine tune. Subsequently, I have performed the 4 edits indicated earlier into their pertinents articles, namely section "Within the United States" of the Puerto Rico article (1 edit); the "See also" sections of the Territories of the United States and Unincorporated territories of the United States articles (2 edits); the move of the entire contents of section "Within the United States" in the Puerto Rico article to the Political status of Puerto Rico article (1 edit). Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Minor updates proposal:

--Seablade (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * New Version Proposal:

I also relied on the conclusion of the Columbia Law Review article to update the second questionable issue.

--Seablade (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect case where paraphrasing, rather than citing verbatim, is preferable, in order not to engage the average reader into mundane legalese that runs the risk of confusing rather than imparting information.


 * In simple terms, what the Rullan court postulated was that the change of Puerto Rico from an unincorporated territory to an incorporated territory would result in Congress extending to Puerto Rico all the constitutional rights enjoyed by the other states. (page 4 of the Rullan Court case text)


 * As such we could modify the text to read as follows:


 * I appreciate Seablade staying close to the text of the Court opinion and the Law Review article in order not to err. However, I do perceive his last version above as overly wordy and convoluted (thanks to both the court's and Law Review's articles wording) and I am afraid it would be too taxing for the average reader to digest the three points in the Law Review article if presented as he is proposing it above. As such, I have tried to use words, phrases and syntax that would be easier for the average reader to understand.


 * I still hold that the DPR opinion does not carry the sort of weight that would merit its addition. As Seablade should know, the burden of proof that any information is relevant rests on the adding editor (in this case, Seablade). With that said, I remind, I have conceded from my inital position that the information had no weight at all and that it should not be added, to where --as it can be appreciated from my proposal above-- I am seeking to achieve a compromise where to the addition of the DPR information is OK but with certain conditions related to ease of reading. At this point, I propose the minor remaining differences be left in the "agree to disagree" pot and seek to compromise on this last version.


 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Minor updates to the proposal, trying that wording be more close to the case and the Columbia Law Review; avoiding any appearance of POV.

--Seablade (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I find your proposal acceptable but in the following form, which I deem necessary to keep long drawn out sentences out:


 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * If the case is so noteworthy, where are the secondary sources? Lets not the get too excited about the Columbia Law article written by a recent graduate. We are not dealing with an article written by  Juan R. Torruella.  Wikipedia is clear about the use of wp:primary sources: "Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources."  I would like to see more secondary sources that prove that a district case (not the First Circuit) is noteworthy and relevant to be included here.


 * It appears there are 2 votes against of adding the DPR/Columbia article to the article, and 1 vote in favor, as follows:


 * AGAINST:
 * Mercy11
 * Jmundo


 * FOR:
 * Seablade


 * NO VOTES:
 * Wtmitchell
 * Nelsondenis248
 * Newyorkbrad
 * Tony the Marine

It appears the result is "NO ADD - Leave DPR opinion & Columbia Law Review article comments OUT."

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.