Talk:Puerto Rico campaign

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, 23:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Battle of Fajardo
This section is growing out of proportions with the rest of the article, yet the sections on battles of Yauco, Coamo and Asomante, which were more crucial to the Campaign than Fajardo's, have summaries that are considerably shorter that what Fajardo's has become in the last few days. Is there a reason for this sudden disproportion? Consider also that the article has been GA for many years. Perhaps users User:Barnabywoods, User:Marine 69-71 or others could comment. Mercy11 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Battle of Fajardo was a minor incident. What I did is reduced it's content 9summerized it) and then created a page dedicated solely to the battle with all it's expanded information (see: Battle of Fajardo). Tony the Marine (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The "Aftermath" section
There's a great deal of material here that really falls outside the scope of the campaign. If I may, I'd suggest moving much of that into an appropriate article, such as History_of_Puerto_Rico, if it isn't already covered there. Thoughts on this? LibertyHiller (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. Hammersbach (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

First Action
I have the name of the unknown Spanish auxiliary cruiser that fought the USS Yale, Alfonso XIII. Mari Mut, J. A. (2013). El diario de guerra de Ángel Rivero Méndez. Retrieved from http://edicionesdigitales.info/diariorivero/diariorivero.pdf Page 18 Would like to see it being added User:LALopezCaceres


 * Fantastico! It is now included as you requested. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Errors in the "Aftermath" section
The "Aftermath" section currently begins with this: "The Puerto Rico Campaign, which began with Yales's capture of Rita on May 8 and ended on August 13 after the Treaty of Paris was signed, [...]" However, the Treaty of Paris wasn't signed until 10th December! I don't know when the military campaign actually ended, but clearly something has become garbled here.

Furthermore, the third paragraph of the "Aftermath" section begins: "Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1898, ratified on December 10, 1898, [...]" This is also incorrect. The treaty was ratified on 11 April 1899.

Because the article is locked for some reason, I'm not able to edit the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.155.12 (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Puertorican" forces
Since Puerto Rico was a Spanish province and the people Spanish citizens, the military units composed of natives of the island were technically Spanish forces. As mentioned in the article, there were also Puerto Rican guerrilla groups that fought for or support the United States armed forces. Some of those guerrilla forces fighting against or harasing the Spanish during the Puerto Rico campaign continued atacking or harassing the wealthy plantation owners (mainly peninsular spanishs) with the exception that now they also harassed the American military authorities after the war. American military authorities declared outlaws ("bandoleros") those "guerilla" groups. The best know "bandolero" during that period was Jose Maldonado Roman aka Aguila blanca ("White Eagle"). So,unless the Spanish forces are separated by province of origin, Puerto Rico should not be included as belligerent. Technically, only Spanish and United State were. Puertorican soldiers in spanish army units fough againts american but common citizens and guerilleros suppot the american forces. JRMR7810 (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored the content that was there before a now blocked, disruptive editor changed it. Also, the map shows the parts of the island that were considered "American" or "Spanish" areas. There is an article for José Maldonado Román. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"Allied" soldiers?
I think referring to both Spanish regulars and Puerto Rican colonial troops as "Allied" forces is misleading and incorrect. As others have pointed out, Puerto Rico was a direct part of the Spanish colonial empire, and the word "allied" implies an alliance between two independent nation states like the Allies of WWII. OpHush (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Who are the "others" who have also pointed that out? If there are any "others", they are wrong too. Nowhere in the article is the word "allied" written with a capital "A" ("Allied") which could make your argument somewhat valid. Check it here. Mercy11 (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * All I'm suggesting is that it's a misleading term that could be replaced with a better one. Nowhere to my knowlege on any other article about an armed conflict is a relationship between regular and colonial troops described as such. I concede that it's not factually incorrect persay, it just strikes me as bad wording. OpHush (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The current infobox states the following in regard to the relation of Puerto Rico and Spain in the above mentioned conflict which I believe to be correct:

Belligerents

Spanish Empire

(as an autonomous colony) Tony the Marine (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Captaincy General of Puerto Rico


 * OpHush, there is nothing wrong with the wording and you are on the wrong side of the definition of "allied". The entire editorial staff of the dictionary cited above, and of every other dictionary, are on the side of the article and oppose your allegation. Additionally, this article earned the coveted "Good Article" seal, which means the description was found to be appropriate. Mercy11 (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Mercy11. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"the military government changed the name of Puerto Rico to Porto Rico"
The sentence "On January 15, 1899, the military government changed the name of Puerto Rico to Porto Rico (On May 17, 1932, U.S. Congress changed the name back to "Puerto Rico")."

No branch of the American military or of the American government ever tried to regulate the Spanish name of Puerto Rico. Rather, in 1899 Elihu Root made Porto Rico its official English name, to be used in all official documents in English.

Thus, during the period mentioned in that sentence, Puerto Rico was the official Spanish name of the territory, to be used in all official documents in Spanish (including textbooks in the schools), and Porto Rico was its official English name (including textbooks), as we see, for example, from the facsimile of the 200-dollar bill issued by the Banco de Puerto Rico / Bank of Porto Rico (reproduced here: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/64598575880215561/?mt=login).

Details here: Gold, David L. 2012. "The Politicization of a Monophthong: A Refutation of All the Puerto Rican Myths About the Native Spanish Place Name Porto Rico." In Estudios de lingüística española: Homenaje a Manuel Seco. Félix Rodríguez González, ed. Alicante. Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante. Pp. 215-268.

Gold's aarticle also documents the Spanish place name Porto Rico in Spanish documents written in Spain by native speakers of Spanish. szvalkemirer S. Valkemirer (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

U.S. Senator George Frisbie Hoar …
The Wikipedia article states, "In 1899, U.S. Senator George Frisbie Hoar described Puerto Ricans as 'uneducated, simple-minded and harmless people who were only interested in wine, women, music and dancing' and recommended that Spanish should be abolished in the island's schools and only English should be taught,” but this appears to be incorrect. The source for the quote is a Feb. 10, 1899 New York Times letter to the editor credited to “S.S. Harvey,” in response to an NYT editorial published on Jan. 16, 1899. (See https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1899/02/22/102409591.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0)

The quoted description of Puerto Ricans comes from the author of this letter to the editor, not from Senator Hoar or from the NYT Editorial. The Editorial does not quote Hoar at all either (see https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1899/01/16/101823288.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0)

This needs correction. Aspotoftea (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)