Talk:Puerto Rico campaign/Archive 3

Puerto Rico in the infobox
Puerto Rico must not appear in the infobox because in 1898 the island wasn't a independent country. In 19th century The Puerto Ricans were Spanish people and fought for the flag of Spain (see the image). Then, the Puerto Ricans fought together with the Spanish Army because Puerto Rico was a part of Spain, an autonomous part of Spain, but a part of Spain. This link: Puerto Rico is for a country and in 1898 this country didn't exist.

In a hypothetical war in present day, in the infobox must appear only Spain, not Community of Madrid, Catalonia, Valencian Community... because all the autonomous communities are part of a country. Is the same case with the autonomous Puerto Rico of 19th century. --Durero (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hum..., I think what Durero is saying is that even though Puerto Rico at that time was and is a nation in it's own right, it wasn't an independent nation that declared war on the United States and it's political status with Spain was smililar to the political status which it has with the U.S. today. Something like when our people were forced (the "draft" is a way of forcing someone) to fight in the Korean War as members of the all Puerto Rican unit, our glorious 65th Infantry, Puerto Rico was not considered as a belligerent in that conflict. Thoughts anyone?
 * Puerto Rico was never a province and the residents were not citizens of Spain, 1. The Treaty of Paris and the Foraker Act describe the residents born in Puerto Rico as "Puerto Rican citizens". Yes, Puerto Rico was not an independent country but it had a unique cultural identity symbolized by the Puerto Rican flag that was violently repressed by the Spanish government. This is 2009 and the era of censorship is over. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent and valid observations by J.Mundo. Puerto Rican citizens did fight and many gave their lives against the American invaders. Plus, the flag of Puerto Rico was proclaimed as Puerto Rico's flag in 1892 by the Puerto Rican Revolutionary Committee in New York City six years before the Spainish-American War. Any thoughts? Tony the Marine (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said in my last edit summary, if the flag is the problem, we could remove it if you consider that a "happy-medium". However, Spain's Autonomy Charter granted Puerto Rico sufficient autonomy to actually name a "Secretary of Grace, Justice and Government / Chief of the Cabinet for the independent Government of Puerto Rico" (I quote Mack Reynolds and his book Puerto Rican Patriot: The Life of Luis Muñoz Rivera there) in Luis Muñoz Rivera. Then there is the nationality charter which was approved even before. Of these decrees, only the autonomy was revoked in line with the United States "trophy hunt", although that directly conflicted with the Treaty of Paris, which stated that the United States would be forced to meet the rights granted by the charters. Some like the "provincial coin", had expiration dates. However others like the nationality didn't and thus they lingered, to the point that for some years Puerto Ricans were legally considered foreigners in American courts. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that some progress is being made. Excellent observation by Caribbean H.Q. Post as an inline reference "Mack Reynolds and his book Puerto Rican Patriot: The Life of Luis Muñoz Rivera" when you post the "happy-medium" flag in the infobox. I think that this would be a viable solution within policy. Any more thoughts? Tony the Marine (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, I must clarify the comment of Jmundo:
 * Puerto Rico was never a province -- Very false. You can read this in the Spanish Constitution of 1876 (current in 1898):
 * Art. 89. Las provincias de Ultramar serán gobernadas por leyes especiales; pero el Gobierno queda autorizado para aplicar a las mismas, con las modificaciones que juzgue convenientes y dando cuenta a las Cortes, las leyes promulgadas o que se promulguen para la Península.
 * Cuba y Puerto Rico serán representadas en las Cortes del Reino en la forma que determine una ley especial, que podrá ser diversa para cada una de las dos provincias.
 * Art. 89. The provinces of Overseas will be governed by special laws; but the Government remains authorized to apply the same ones, with the modifications that it considers to be suitable and realizing to the Cortes del Reino [Parliament], the promulgated laws or that are promulgated for the Peninsula.
 * Cuba and Puerto Rico will be represented in the Cortes del Reino in a way that it determines a special law, which will be able to be diverse for each of two provinces.
 * the residents [of Puerto Rico] were not citizens of Spain -- False. You can read this in the Autonomy Charter of Puerto Rico:
 * Art. 6. Para tomar asiento en el Consejo de Administración se requiere: ser español; haber cumplido treinta y cinco años; haber nacido en la Isla o llevar en ella cuatros años de residencia constante...
 * Art. 6. To be part of the Consejo de Administración [Chamber of Diputies in Puerto Rico] is needed: to be a Spanish; to be thirty five years old; to have born in the Island or took four years of constant residence...
 * If the Puerto Ricans weren't Spanish, how a person can fulfill this requisites: to be a Spanish and to have born in the Island??
 * And, in the Spanish Constitution:
 * Artículo 1º. Son españoles: Primero. Las personas nacidas en territorio español''
 * Article 1. They are Spanish: First. The persons born in Spanish territory
 * Puerto Rico was a Spanish territory? Yes. Then, the Puerto Ricans were spanish people.
 * The Treaty of Paris [...] describe the residents born in Puerto Rico as "Puerto Rican citizens" -- False. Where? I read continuously that Puerto Rico was a spanish island, but nothing of "Puerto Rican citizens":
 * Artículo II. España cede a los Estados Unidos la Isla de Puerto Rico y las demás que están ahora bajo su soberanía en las Indias Occidentales, y la Isla de Guam en el Archipiélago de las Marianas o Ladrones.
 * Article II. Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.
 * Artículo X. Los habitantes de los territorios cuya soberanía España renuncia o cede, tendrán asegurado el libre ejercicio de su religión.
 * Article X. The inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured in the free exercise of their religion.
 * Artículo XI. Los españoles residentes en los territorios cuya soberanía cede o renuncia España por este tratado...
 * Article XI. The Spaniards residing in the territories over which Spain by this treaty cedes or relinquishes her sovereignty...
 * the Foraker Act describe the residents born in Puerto Rico as "Puerto Rican citizens" -- Obvious, absurd and almost false. It's true that you can read the words "Puerto Rican citizens", but this document was written in 1900! How you appoint in this year a resident in the island?? But if you continues, you can read this:
 * Art. 7. Todos los habitantes que continúen residiendo allí, los cuales eran súbditos españoles el día once de abril de mil ochocientos noventa y nueve, y a la sazón residían en Puerto Rico, y sus hijos con posterioridad nacidos allí, serán tenidos por ciudadanos de Puerto Rico, y como tales con derecho a la protección de los Estados Unidos; excepto aquellos que hubiesen optado por conservar su fidelidad a la Corona de España el día once de abril de mil novecientos, o antes, de acuerdo con lo previsto en el Tratado de Paz entre los Estados Unidos y España, celebrado el día once de abril de mil ochocientos noventa y nueve; y ellos, en unión de los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos que residan en Puerto Rico, constituirán un cuerpo político bajo el nombre de "El Pueblo de Puerto Rico"...
 * Art. 7. 'All the inhabitants who continue residing there [Puerto Rico], which were Spanish subjects on April 11 1899, and to the season they were residing in Puerto Rico, and his children with posteriority born there, they will be had by citizens of Puerto Rico, and as such with right to the protection of the United States; except those that had chosen to preserve his loyalty to the Crown of Spain on April 11 1900, or before, in agreement with the foreseen in the Agreement of Peace between the United States and Spain, celebrated on April 11 of 1899; and they, in union of the citizens of the United States who reside in Puerto Rico, will form a political body under the name of "El Pueblo de Puerto Rico''" [The People of Puerto Rico]...
 * Conclusion: Puerto Rico was a spanish province (autonomous) and the Puerto Ricans were spanish people. --Durero (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Spain's Autonomy Charter granted Puerto Rico sufficient autonomy to actually name a "Secretary of Grace, Justice and Government / Chief of the Cabinet for the independent Government of Puerto Rico"???? In this document, you can read:
 * Artículo 2. El Gobierno de la Isla se compondrá de un Parlamento Insular, dividido en dos Cámaras, y de un Gobernador General, representante de la Metrópoli, que ejercerá en nombre de ésta la Autoridad Suprema.
 * Article 2. The Government of the Island will consist of an Insular Parliament divided in two Chambers, and of a General Governor, representative of the Metropolis, who will exercise in name of this one the Supreme Authority.
 * Durero (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I am going to give my humble opinion in regard to the "citizen" issue, but not in regard to the infobox situation. It is my understanding that while Puerto Rico was under Spanish rule, Puerto Ricans were considered Spanish subjects. As a matter of fact the "Royal Decree of Graces of 1815" required that all those wishing to settle in Puerto Rico could so under the on the condition that they swear their loyalty to the Spanish Crown. When Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States in 1898, Puerto Ricans were given an option, either you can return to Spain as a Spanish subject or stay in Puerto Rico and become a Puerto Rican citizen. The people of Puerto Rico were Puerto Rican citizens and considered as aliens by the United States as was revealed in the 1904 "Gonzales v. Williams" case. American citizenship was finally imposed on Puerto Ricans in 1917 by the Jones Act without the requirement that Puerto Ricans give up their citizenship. I bring this up because I believe that Durero may be right in regard to the fact that our ancestors were Spanish subjects. I may be wrong, any thoughts? Tony the Marine (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The autonomous charter that Durero talks about had a brief movement of existence only from February to September 1898 1. The fact is that Puerto Rico was a colony of the Spanish Empire not a province, or an autonomous region like Madrid. Puerto Ricans didn’t have any legal or human rights under the Spanish crown so calling them “Spanish people” is absurd and incorrect. That’s why the Foraker act didn't described them  as  Spanish citizens. But  I'm not going to continue to  fight the flag battle, this article is not about that. In elementary schools students are taught that  General Miles was  received with open arms.  Nowhere are the names of the Puerto Ricans who were killed in the war. This article is about what the official history omitted.  Puerto Ricans soldiers have served with honor and distinction to this day under the flag of the empire. Hopefully we can we can continue to raise awareness about their stories.--J.Mundo (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Puerto Rico was not a Spanish province, it was an exploited colony. I have to agree with J.Mundo, many Puerto Ricans resented Spanish rule of the island and identified themselves as "Puerto Ricans". Among the first to identify himself as a Puerto Rican was Ramon Power y Giralt. They revolted against Spanish rule numerous times not only in El Grito de Lares. Now, that I think about it I haven't read an autobiography of any Puerto Rican born prior to 1898 in which the subject is referred as a Spaniard. Yes, the important thing about this article is that it tells the truth, Puerto Ricans did fight the Americans for their country (Puerto Rico), even if they were armed by the Spaniards and many of those who didn't fight was because they believed in the false promises of liberty made by the invader and that in the long run they would gain their independence.

The bottom line is that I believe that Puerto Rico was and still is a nation (even if it was and continues to be governed by forgien powers) with its' own unique customs, traditions and language dialect before Spain granted it an Autonomy Charter.Tony the Marine (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Puerto Rico was a province. Can you read my reference?
 * Art. 89. The provinces of Overseas will be governed by special laws; but the Government remains authorized to apply the same ones, with the modifications that it considers to be suitable and realizing to the Cortes del Reino [Parliament], the promulgated laws or that are promulgated for the Peninsula.
 * Cuba and Puerto Rico will be represented in the Cortes del Reino in a way that it determines a special law, which will be able to be diverse for each of two provinces.
 * It's the fundamental law, the Constitution!! References for say that Puerto Rico wasn't a province??
 * I never have deny that Puerto Ricans soldiers fought against the americans. I said that these Puerto Ricans were Spanish people and I demonstrated with documents. Then, Puerto Rico as "belligerent" is incorrect because this make understand that Puerto Rico was an enity completely separate of Spain. But in "strength" it's correct this: 8,000 (Spaniard) 10,000 (Puerto Rican).
 * --Durero (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Jmundo, the document that now you criticize (the autonomy charter) is the same that you used for defend that Puerto Rico must be in the infobox of the Spanish Wikipedia... (here) Durero (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right the constitution of the empire said that Puerto Ricans were "Spanish people". That's why the Spanish colonial government tried to repress any manifestation of the Puerto Rican culture and nationalism. I suggest you read about the history of Puerto Rico. Please try to go beyond the official documents of the Spanish empire. This conversation is getting absurd. We are not in 1898 and the Spanish constitution is not the fundamental law of Wikipedia. Are we going to delete the Palestinian flag from the infobox because Palestine is not a sovereign country? Are we going to called them "Israeli people"? Give me a break. You now what, go ahead and delete the Puerto Rican flag from the Puerto Rico article because Puerto Rico is a colony commonwealth of the United States and Puerto Ricans are by definition of the U.S constitution "American people".  The Puerto Rico flag should be in the infobox because Puerto Rico had a completely separate identity from Spain. I'm thinking of asking for a broader consensus in the Wikiproject:Puerto Rico. Any suggestions? --J.Mundo (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PD: The consensus on Wikipedia: flags don’t represent only sovereign states.--J.Mundo (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG. Any reliable source on Puerto Rico will say that Puerto Rico was a combatant. In particular, the seminal study by Dr. Doña Loida Figueroa "Breve Historia de Puerto Rico, Segunda Parte" and, Angel Rivero's "Crónica de la guerra hispano americana en Puerto         Rico" clarify a lot of the military history of the war, including military history addenda. The burden lies with Durero to provides sources, not original research, that contradicts this assertion.

I interned with Doña Loida in the 1990s, and help produce an statistical analysis of the naval forces disposition and order of battle of the Spanish fleet based on her primary source research. This is solid histography. The rest is ideological crapola.--Cerejota (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Puerto Rico was a province of Spain. Do not you want original documents? No problem:
 * «[...] la voz de un digno representante de una de las provincias de España, de la provincia de Puerto Rico» (Historia de Puerto Rico, siglo XIX.)
 * «[...] en el distrito de Aguadilla, provincia de Puerto-Rico» (Colección legislativa de España)
 * «[...] la consideración de la isla [Puerto Rico] como provincia» (Masonería Española y América)
 * «Puerto Rico Provincia de España» (Breve y sencilla historia del Estado libre asociado de Puerto Rico)
 * «Queda totalmente abolida y para siempre la esclavitud en la provincia de Puerto-Rico.» Historia de la esclavitud negra en Puerto Rico
 * «[...] matriculado en la villa de Arecibo de la Provincia de Puerto Rico» (Boletín histórico de Puerto Rico)
 * Provincia de Puerto Rico, pueblo de Juana Díaz reseña de la administración
 * Estadística General del Comercio Exterior de la provincia de Puerto Rico
 * Do you need more? Because I contribute with a lot of references and quotes and demonstrate that Puerto Rico was a province. And you...? Where I can read that Spain and Puerto Rico fought in the Spanish-American War against USA? And I say "Puerto Rico" not Puerto Ricans... because I know that thousands of Puerto Ricans fought in this war, but I didn't knew that "Puerto Rico" as an entity separate of Spain fought... References?
 * --Durero (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Jmundo: Do you compare the current Palestine with the 19th century Puerto Rico??? No comments... --Durero (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Between 1897 and 1898 Puerto Rico was granted full autonomy, including its own currency, postage stamps, and citizenship. It is true that a different times Puerto Rico was either a colony or an overseas province of Spain, but by the time of the Spanish-American war it was essentially an independent protectorate of Spain. What this means in terms of the war and the Treaty of Spain is subject to political controversy, but the histographical facts are what they are. Unfortunately, my copies of both books I cited are in Puerto Rico, and I am in New York City, but those books are clear on this point. BTW, Historia de Puerto Rico, Siglo XIX. is almost 60 years old, with the last revised edition in the 1970s.


 * The sources you provide are also decontextualized, and you are perfoming WP:SYNTH with them. A Google Books search for "Puerto Rico" "spanish colony" returns 796 hits, while "Puerto Rico" "spanish province" returns 351 - a perusal of the returned hits clearly shows that the usage is not specific to Puerto Rico. But mere mention of the term in usage doesn't prove anything: the term "Provincias" in 19th century usage of Spain changed meaning many times, as did the actual goverment structure of Spain. This has clear implications for Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines and Guam - the last remaining Spanish colonies. For example, the Constitution of 1812 granted full representation and province status to Puerto Rico, but this was revoked in 1814 - as Spain handled the consequences of the loss of most of South America. Spain then feel into disarray and civil war, and the emergence of Carlism, a process that didn't calm down until the mid 1870s with the end of the First Spanish Republic. Interestingly enough, during the brief period of the republic, Puerto Rico got its own flag, different from Spain's: . Nominally from 1837 to 1897 Puerto Rico was an "overseas" or "maritime" province of Spain. In 1897, it was given full autonomy. I already provided sources.


 * The analogy with the Autonomous communities of Spain today is ludicrous and ahistoric. They are a very recent development in Spanish structure, and had no precedent. The reality is that Puerto Rico had no self-determination around its status and by any modern definition of "colony", that is, the definition that reliably sourced historians that we use in wikipedia, it was a colony. And by 1897 it had an "independent" Government, as per the Autonomic Charter.


 * You are conviniently ignoring established histographic consensus to enage in original research, introducing novel synthesis not based in reliable sources, and forwarding what as best can be described as fringe ideas. I suggest you read all the policies I have linked to, and realize that verifiability, not truth doesn't support your assertions. Any numbers of sources can call Puerto Rico a "province" but a thorough reading of cannonical histographic works contradicts the original research synthesis you forward.--Cerejota (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The colony of Puerto Rico
 * This Spanish colony dates back to 1493, 1
 * Puerto Rico as a colony of Spain, 2
 * Further revenue from the colony, 3
 * The basic problem of Puerto Rico as with any colony, 4
 * Puerto Rico has developed from a colony of Spain, 5
 * Spanish colony, 6
 * Puerto Rico was a colony of Spain for 405 years, 7
 * Spanish Empire, "It included territories and colonies ruled by Spain in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania between the 15th and late 19th centuries. Spain also held colonies in Africa until the mid-to-late 20th century.
 * You talked about consensus, but you are the only reverting the established infobox, .--J.Mundo (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the change as per overwhelming consensus and respect for our policies on content.--Cerejota (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why if I undid a edition of Jmundo, who try change the article without wait for end the discussion, my edition is reverted. Then, some people can change the article and anothers not? I think that the article must be as when start the discussion...
 * I don't understand why the analogy with the autonomous communities is ludicrous and ahistoric but to comparate Palestine with Puerto Rico is correct...
 * I don't understand why Cerejota put in the infobox this flag: File:Flag of Puerto Rico.svg for represent to the government of the autonomous Puerto Rico (loyal to Spain) when this flag represented to the independentist ideas...
 * I have never deny that Puerto Rico was a colony. I said that Puerto Rico (and Cuba) was a province because Jmundo said: «Puerto Rico was never a province» . I replied with references: «First of all, I must clarify the comment of Jmundo...» . Both islands had a special status, were colonies, but also were provinces (read my references). Philippines and the rest only were colonies.
 * Conclusion: The best edition is the revision of Caribbean H.Q. . If you want be logical and put the corrects flags in 1898, this for Spain and this for USA, never you will can put this for the Autonomous Government of Puerto Rico...--Durero (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any one can edit. However, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Read it in the bottom of the edit page. Please also read Bold, Revert, Discuss. Jmundo might have been mistaken, or perhaps miswrote, but this doesn't change the fact that this discussion is not about all of the historical facts around Puerto Rico: Do the reliable sources of histography support the view that Puerto Rican and Spanish troops fought against the USA, or is this not true? The fact is, as you have been told by me and others, that Puerto Rico had been autonomous, with its own currency, citizenship, and Government, since 1897, a little under a year before the invasion. If for 65 years before this event Puerto Rico was a "Provincia de Ultramar", so be it, but that is not what is being discussed here.


 * As to the use of the flag, it is the Flag of Puerto Rico. The autonomic government was still deciding on a flag when the war came about, and when Puerto Rico became a US colony, no official flag came to use until the 1952 Commonwealth. For the purpose of illustrating an encyclopedia, we can live with that flag, unless you or someone else provides some valid alternative.


 * I reverted you because I felt you were edit warring - not because I necessarily endorse the content (WP:MILMOS) seems to support your point, but this is a matter to seek consensus around, not for contentious editing.


 * Please do not change the topic of this thread by derailing this into a discussion of the general history of Puerto Rico: a talk page is to discuss changes to an article, not a general discussion of topics. And focus on the content, not the editors. I thank you in advance.--Cerejota (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you want put "Puerto Rico" in the infobox? I repeat, where I can read that: Puerto Rico fought in the Spanish-American War against USA? References? In the school, I studied that Spain fought against USA.
 * As to the use of the flag, you admited that the current flag is incorrect (WP:MILMOS), then, do you agree with to remove the flag? --Durero (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected

Attention to all parties involved, I have protected the article from what seems to be an edit-war until an agreement or consensus can be reached in regard to the contents of the infobox. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think protection was necessary. Only one user continues to delete the content of the infobox and the article history shows that consensus is a clear-cut case. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * O.K. Jmundo, I will do as you suggested and unprotect. However, I expect in good faith that the article's infobox will not be subject to an edit war and remain as is until an agreement or consensus is reached. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My conclusion of this discussion
Mis estimados amigos y compatriotas. I fully understand Durero's position in regard to the infobox. He does not question that Puerto Ricans fought against the invading forces. What he believes is that since Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony and not an independent nation and as such it should not be placed in the Belligerents section. In some cases people tend to place only the names of independent nations involved in combat in the military infoboxes. Yet, this practice can be questioned. When we look at the article American Revolutionary War, we notice that the flag of the United States is posted in the infobox, even though it was the colonies who fought against England and not the United States of America which did not exist at the time of the conflict.

The term "belligerant" can referrer to an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. The Confederate States of America, though not recognized as a sovereign state, was recognized as a belligerent power and therefore the Flag of the Confederate States of America is included in the American Civil War article's infobox. According to the definition of the word "belligerant" Puerto Rico does qualify to be recognized as such either as a country or as a group. Are there any guidelines in regard to the military infobox which state that colonies or non-independent units cannot be posted in the military infobox? The answer is no, otherwise we would have to remove the American Flag from the infobox of the American Revolutionary War article (they were 13 colonies at the time and not a nation) and the Confederate Flag from the info box of the American Civil War article, since the Confederate States were a non-independent unit or nation.

Therefore, I declare that under the circumstances the Puerto Rican flag and the name of Puerto Rico stay in the infobox, unless someone can provide a Wikipedia military infobox guideline which would state otherwise. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree and support the conclusion of this discussion. Any conversation in the future should be about the guidelines (if any) of the military conflict info box. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree (obvius). Then you can remove "Spain" in the infobox. If Puerto Rico was independent (your opinion, of curse) then Spain "no pinta nada" in Puerto Rico. The Army defend a island with a independent government not a Spanish territory. It's no important that they were spanish soldiers because they defend Puerto Rico. Example: Canary Islands. An army attack and 1000 Spaniards and 500 Colombians defend the islands. The flag of Colombia musn't appear because the 500 Colombians defend Spain. Then, as the 8000 Spaniard in Puerto Rico defended Puerto Rico and not Spain, the flag of Spain must disappear. Correct?


 * Keep the current flag of Puerto Rico (in 1898, symbol of a independentist movement) is horrible (historical viewpoint).


 * Your example (American Revolutionary War) isn't good because is a war of the independence. See: French and Indian War.
 * [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|22px|border]] American Colonies
 * What happen if I change this and written:
 * [[Image:US flag 13 stars – Betsy Ross.svg|border|22px]] United States
 * It's incorrect, really? But in 1763 the Thirteen Colonies was not an independent country but sure that already it had a unique cultural identity, or not? Well, it's the same case with Puerto Rico. --Durero (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Durero, read once more my statement before you come to conclutions. Nowhere in my statement will you find a reference to Puerto Rico as an independent nation. As a matter of fact I referred to Puerto Rico as a Spanish colony as you yourself have pointed out. Nowhere will you find anything indicating that Spain's rule was less important in the conflict. You have stated that in 1763 the Thirteen Colonies was not an independent country but sure that already it had a unique cultural identity, well I have news for you, The 13 colonies did not become one nation until the United States Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1787 plus, by 1898, Puerto Rico had and continues to have it's own unique cultural identity.


 * The current flag of Puerto Rico is the symbol of all the people of Puerto Rico regardless of the color tones used.


 * Do not confuse the American Civil War with the American Revolutionary War whiich was the war for independence. The Confederate States were not recognized as a nation, yet they have their Flag in the infobox.

I am sorry for you, but if you can not provide a Wikipedia policy or a military infobox guideline which clearly states that the flag of a colony which fought an invader can not be placed in said infobox, then you do not have a case. Let me remind you that here in the English Wikipedia we go by policy and consensus. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * «I am sorry for you, but if you can not provide a Wikipedia policy or a military infobox guideline which clearly states that the flag of a colony which fought an invader can not be placed in said infobox, then you do not have a case.»


 * No problem. But the current flag wasn't the flag of the colonial Puerto Rico. --Durero (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But the current flag represent the people of Puerto Rico, just like the current the flag of the Tuscarora (tribe) [[Image:Flag of the Iroquois Confederacy.svg|border|22px]] represent this tribe that participated in the American Revolutionary War (I don't think that the tribe had a flag in the 18th century, but maybe I'm wrong). This conversation about the use of flags in the the military conflict info box is very interesting but it should be taken to another forum and not this article. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's possible, we must put the most correct flag. File:Flag of Spain.svg also represent the people of Spain, but it's incorrect for the 19th century. The same with the flag of Puerto Rico. --Durero (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Durero is right in the sense that the current flag was not the Spanish colonial falg used in Puerto Rico. The Spanish colonial flag used in Puerto Rico at the time (1873-1898) was this one: PR Flag of 1873.jpg, with Puerto Rico's Coat of Arms in the middle. I for one, would not object if this flag was placed in the infobox since it would be historicaly correct. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, this flag is as incorrect as the current flag. File:PR Flag of 1873.jpg is only for the First Spanish Republic. Too: the use of this flag isn't demonstrated (see ). In this web you can read the words of an historian about the flag of Puerto Rico:


 * «They've determined it's the oldest Puerto Rican national flag in existence, and pre-dates Puerto Rico becoming a U.S. territory.»


 * The flag is File:Bandera tercer batallon.jpg. See also:.


 * Conclusion: if the Puerto Ricans used the flag of Spain, then the most correct flag for 1898 is File:Flag of Spain (1785-1873 and 1875-1931).svg. --Durero (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bendito sea Dios! Stop being so technical Durero. Are you a historian? Are you a military historian? Well, guess what, I am experienced with military history and if you have any doubts take a look at my user page. You are wrong in your assumptions:

1. The Spanish colonial flag used in Puerto Rico at the time (1873-1898) was the one with Puerto Rico's Coat of Arms in the middle. 2. The flag which you cite the "Bandera tercer batallon" is a military standard which is common among the military and not a national flag.

Look, I'm finished discussing this topic with you because it seems that as much as I have tried to comprimise a solution the only thing that you do is disagree and complian. Therefore I am done. As I have stated before, if there aren't any Wikipedia policies or a military infobox guidelines which clearly state that the flag of a colony who fought an invading force can not be placed in said infobox, then let it be it. It will be whatever the community decides and not what you like or want. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Flagspot/FOTW is not a reliable source, as it is basically a mailing list into which anyone can say anything. I do not object the First Rpeublic Flag, as it is indeed less anachronic than the current flag, but neither of them were the Flag in 1897-1898: the Autonomical Government had not yet decided on a flag, but as were the Cubans, the histrography shows they were leaning to the existing flag. Durero, I suggest you understand that overwhelmign consensus is against you, and advise you that community sanctions might be applicable if you continue to be disruptive. Tony is very patient and accomodating, and that he is getting this way is very out of character and demonstrates how disruptive you are being. Stop and reconsider your position. We are all open for convincing otherwise, but your argument so far amounts to "I am right, you are wrong". I also suggest you read WP:RS and WP:SYNTH, you obviously have not done so yet.--Cerejota (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But the two flags are incorrects. Neither represent the Puerto Rico of 1898. File:PR Flag of 1873.jpg is for the period of First Republic. If you see the coat of arms, you will see that the coat of arms have a mural crown (this mean that it's a republican flag). And File: Flag of Puerto Rico.svg obviusly can not represent to a loyal government to Spain. If File:Bandera tercer batallon.jpg was the flag of a military flag of a Puerto Rican regiment, this mean that File:Flag of Spain (1785-1873 and 1875-1931).svg was the flag most correct to representate Puerto Rico. Why? Because the historians consider that the Royal Decree of 1843 means that the "red, yellow, red" flag turn into the national flag.


 * Siendo la bandera nacional el verdadero símbolo de la monarquía española, ha llamado la atención al Gobierno la diferencia que existe entre aquélla y las particulares de los Cuerpos del Ejército: tan notable diferencia trae su origen del que tuvo cada uno de sus mismos Cuerpos, porque formados bajo la dominación e influjo de los diversos reinos, provincias ó pueblos en que estaba antiguamente dividida la España, cada cual adoptó los colores o blasones de aquel que le daba nombre. La unidad de la monarquía española y la organización del Ejército y demás dependencias del Estado exigen imperiosamente que desaparezcan todas las diferencias hasta ahora han subsistido sin otro fundamento que el recuerdo de su división local, perdido desde bien lejanos tiempos.


 * If File:Flag of Spain (1785-1873 and 1875-1931).svg is consider the national flag when the Army adopted, then if the Puerto Rican regiment have a "red, yellow, red" flag means that File:Flag of Spain (1785-1873 and 1875-1931).svg was the "national" flag of Puerto Rico.


 * Claro que como parece que aquí ya está todo decidido, me rindo. Pero, al igual que Galileo ante la Inquisición (o me retracto o me ejecutan), aunque acepto la decisión de no cambiar el infobox, aquí va mi propio e pur si muove: Puerto Rico por muy gobierno autónomo que tuviera, no era un territorio independiente, era español, así es declarado en todos los documentos, incluso en el Tratado de París; los puertorriqueños eran españoles, pues así se establece por las leyes de España (e indirectamente por la Carta Autonómica); y la bandera actual no representa para nada al Puerto Rico decimonónico (por muy autónomo que fuera), ya que era símbolo de un movimiento independentista (que alguien hubiera intentado ponerla en San Juan, a ver que habría pasado).


 * Sin más, me despido. Ha sido un placer discutir con vosotros, si exceptúo el final, donde considero que se me ha cortado (y echado) de mala manera. Espero coincidir con vosotros en otras circunstancias más benignas, y coloborar juntos. Un saludo. --Durero (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Flag
The Puerto Rican flag was not used by any of the forces involved in the Spanish American war and should not be used in the battle box, the flag of spain was used by all spanish forces on the island. The proper custom in place for the use of battleboxes on wikipedia is to use the flags used by the forces involved in combat at the time of the conflict. Hence either the spanish flag should be used or no flag should be listed next to puerto rico since the island had no official flag at the time. XavierGreen (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have a point, but I really do not think that this should be such a big deal. When we look at the article American Revolutionary War we notice that the flag of the United States is posted in the infobox, even though it was the colonies who did not have a flag at the time, who fought against England and not the "United States of America" which did not exist at the time of the conflict. Puerto Rico did have a Spanish Colonial Flag I believe from 1873 to 1898, see:File:PR Flag of 1873.jpg. Yet, it is the current flag designed in in 1892, adopted by the Puerto Rican Revolutionary Committee and which has been the official standard since 1952 which we associate with Puerto Rico. Let's give it some time to see what others may have to say. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say to use the flag that existed at the time. For example, articles regarding the United States at a time period (should) use the flag that has the appropriate number of stars for that time period (such as WWII articles showing a flag with 48 stars). If there are doubts that a representative flag actually existed, then the closest subsitute should be made.  bahamut0013  words deeds   14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The autonomous government in 1898 didn't have an official flag, it was not until 1952 that Puerto Rico had an official flag. What we have is RS that established that PR flag goes back to 1892 and had been accepted by the Puerto Rican people as their symbol. For Wikipedia purposes, we can live with this flag that has the consensus of the community, 1. As for File:PR Flag of 1873.jpg, I don't see any RS that establish that this flag was used as the official one.   J mundo 15:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - The Spanish Colonial Flag was used from 1873 to 1875 (It was my mistake to post "1898", I'm going to fix that in the proper places), The Colonial Flag can be seen at the Arecibo Museo del Faro. Therefore, I agree with you that the Colonial Flag can not be used in the infobox. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The flag of the united states was in offical use during the revolutionary war. The flag of puerto rico was not. Not a single soldier fought under the flag of puerto rico in the spanish american war, it would be misleading to leave it there. While the flag may have been accepted by Puerto Ricans outside of puerto rico as the flag of their community, the flag was a symbol of rebellion during spanish rule and was certaintly not used during the operations fought by puerto ricans to maintain spanish rule of the island during the spanish american war.

198.138.209.3(talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- No, the flag of the united states was not in official use during the revolutionary war. First of all there was no "United State of America" during the revolution. There were 13 colonies who fought the British. On "September 17, 1787", the Philadelphia Convention adopted the current United States Constitution and its ratification the following year made the states part of a single republic hence the "United States of America". Second, the U.S. Flag pictured in the infobox in the article of the American Revolutionary War is not the proper one since various flags were used. The Continental Congress adopted the star spangled banner June 14, 1777, two years into the war as a symbol of the 13 colonies and not the United States, which as I have already stated did not exist.

However, I do agree that the current Puerto Rican flag was not used by the people of Puerto Rico during the conflict. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the Wikipedians here that say that the flag of Puerto Rico shouldn't be used in the article since there was not a flag for the island for that epoch. Maybe the Boricuas in the US's or worldwide will like to see the current national flag there but it's can not be, shouldn't be.  It's just my humble opinion after read the talk. Thanks for read. (IoWiki2007 Io_Wiki2007 (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

While it is historically correct that PR had no flag during the 19th century, pragmatically we could identify PR and PR forces through the use of the only flag that we identify as the Puerto Rican flag, the flag that was adopted in the 1890's by a factional committee and made PR's official flag in 1952. Pr4ever (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We should just remove the three flags, the links are enough. "XavierGreen" has been complaining about this article since the stubs were merged, recreating his "Second Battle of San Juan" piece (yet another perpetual stub) several times without pursuing any sort of discussion. He will continue nitpicking if we give him a reason to do so, we must not, there are bigger things to worry about. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  07:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The flag of the untied states was in use in the revolutionary war. http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/misc/ourflag/history1.htm

But beyond that, I am not nitpicking. I am simply trying to make the article conform to standards already established for similar articals withing wikipedia. And i still intend to recreate the Battle of San Juan article because there are litterally books written about the subject and the controversy surrounding it, none of which is mentioned in this current article. XavierGreen (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC) XavierGreen (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I want to clarify that the following statement is wrong: "The flag of the untied states was in use in the revolutionary war." Not even the source which you provided confirms that. Is it so difficult to understand something so simple as that there was "no" "United States" during the American Revolutionary War? That the United States came into being on September 17, 1788 a year after the Philadelphia Convention adopted and ratified the Constitution making the 13 states part of a single republic. A little research into the history United States would have made that clear and would have shown that among the various flags used in the American Revolution were the Grand Union Flag and the Guilford Court House Flag.

Now, getting back to the subject of Puerto Rico. I would like to see you or anyone for that matter protest the use of the current American Flag in the infobox of the American Revolution article with the same energy that has been used to protested the use of the Puerto Rican Flag in this article thereby, proofing that you do not have an agenda (Which I truely believe that you don't) and are not biased against this article.

All other issues aside, I moved (renamed) "Second Battle of San Juan" article to the "Third Battle of San Juan", since the first Battle of San Juan occurred in 1625 against the Dutch and the Second Battle of San Juan in 1797 against the British, thereby making the Battle of 1898 the Third Battle of San Jaun. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not wrong, the country under the articles of confederation was called the United States of America which was ratified in 1781, the revolutionary war ended in 1783. I suggest you read the articles of confederation yourself. Furthermore the flag of the united states was the official flag of the nation visa ve the The Flag Resolution of 1777.  I suggest you read the Flag of the United States article if you don't believe the government source ive previously provided.  I would not protest the use of the american flag in the revolutionary war article because it was infact the national flag of the United States during the war. The flag of puerto rico was not an official flag and the flag of spain was used by spanish and colonial forces instead. Therefore i still believe that the spanish flag, or a colonial derivative should be placed there instead.

XavierGreen (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would like proof that this is the established norm within battleboxes, you can refer to the case of india within the well established Pacific War article. Note how it does not use the flag of india in the battlebox, and instead uses the colonial british flag.  There litterally are dozens of battleboxes that follow this precedent.  If you would like me to provide more examples im more than willing and able to post them hereXavierGreen (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What the articles of confederation referred to as the United States of America was the 13 individual colonies (each one considered themsleves an independent"state" per se) who united together in the common cause of fighting the British for their independence and not as a republic. The republic came about after the Philadelphia Convention adopted and ratified the Constitution. Don't consider this as a hostile interchange between us two, it is just an intellectual exchange of thoughts. Anyway, I understand your point of view in regard to the flag in the infobox. Let's give it until late Sunday to see if any other comments come up and after a review the proper changes will be made. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the decision is to remove the PR flag, then I support Caribbean H.Q's idea of removing the other two. Manual of Style (infoboxes) says that we can adapt the infobox according to the article. In this case (sadly) we seem to lack a source to establish what was the official flag of the autonomous government.-- J mundo 20:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
Please particpate and vote with a "Support", if you wish, for one of the following options:

Even though I understand the argument presented by User talk:XavierGreen, as a Puerto Rican who loves his country I can't see why it is a big deal. Yet, since the point discussed is the fact that, even though the Puerto Rican Revolutionary Committee adopted the current design of our flag in 1892, it was outlawed by Spain and not allowed to be used in the battlefields by the Puerto Rican troops who fought against the United States in the Spanish American War. Puerto Ricans fought under the Spanish flag, however many carried the following flag into the battlefields File:Bandera tercer batallon.jpg which did not represent Puerto Rico but the Puerto Rican units which fought under Spanish rule. Unfortunately as stated before, the current Puerto Rican flag was not. After reviewing the above comments I believe that these are the options:

1. Remove only the Puerto Rican flag icon. XavierGreen (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support The only sovereign states in this campaign were the US and Spain. Use the US and Spain flag only. Joelito (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Use of the Puerto Rican flag here is anacronistic, and will confuse the reader.

The Puerto Rican flag of 1892 was not permitted to be used and outlawed by Spain and the United States in an attempt to crush the will and right of independence of the people of Puerto Rico in violation of their civil rights and the freedom of speech and assembly which the Constitution of the United States is supposed to guaranteed, with the aid of the Puerto Rican puppet government of Jesús T. Piñero, who on June 11, 1948, signed the infamous "Ley de la Mordaza" (Gag Law) or Law 53 as it was officially known, passed by the Puerto Rican legislature which made it illegal to display the Puerto Rican Flag. That is why the people of Puerto Rico did not have their own flag "official" flag until 1952. Since Wikipedia does not have an official rule which requires that flag icons be placed in infoboxes, plus the only purpose of flag icons in this article seem to be more of decorative thing which does not provide anything to the article, I propose the option that has been discussed by other users, that all the flag icons be removed.

2. Remove all three flag icons.
 * 1) Support Tony the Marine (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  In this case the flag icons are decorative and WP:MILMOS doesn't recommend the use of them. -- J mundo 05:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Although I prefer the current version, the fact that the flags will open more fringe arguments is apparent, soon Durero will make a comeback and this nonsense will continue spinning. Taking that under consideration, I prefer to use a "leave all or take all" approach and remove all three flags. -   Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  07:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Pr4ever (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Io_Wiki2007 (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)IoWiki2007]] the 3 flags could be removed

As a proud Puerto Rican, I will not remove the flag from the infobox unless a consensus is reached in regard to one of the two options. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

inconclusive result
How can this campaign possibly be considered inconclusive when the US captured the island after destroying the Spanish defenders. It makes no sense.


 * Good question. Even though the United States invaded Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American War, they did not capture the island. The Spanish and Puerto Rican forces were still going at it in the Puerto Rican Campaign against the American forces when a cease fire was declared. Therefore, since in the Puerto Rican Campaign there were no victors nor losers, it was inconclusive. We can only speculate that the United States would have won said campaign had there not been a cease fire, but that would be just that speculation and Wikipedia is about facts, about what was and is and not about what it could have been. The island was not captured, instead it was ceded to the United States in accordance to the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris of 1898. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj4444 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

map
First of all I want to say that I really like this article and props to tony for creating it; but I was thinking that maybe the map could be redone to go with the times, for example at least I know that the municipio of Florida did not exist and San Juan and Rio Piedras were 2 different municipalities at the time, not to be a buzz kill, just an observation. What do you all think? El Johnson (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a bad suggestion at all. I agree, I'll check into it, however if you or anyone that you know can come up with a map that reflects the Puerto Rico of 1898 and place the troop movements, that will be great. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK here is what I have found, I compared these 2 maps, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_the_78_municipalities_of_Puerto_Rico.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ct000347.jpg. Then looking more into it I found these differences;


 * 1) Guanica was not a municipality until 1914, before this it apparently belonged to [[Yauco]
 * 2) Jayuya was not a municipality until 1911, don't know to what municipality it belonged to
 * 3) Florida was not a municipality until 1971, before this it belonged to Barceloneta
 * 4) Orocovis was officially known ad Barros before 1928
 * 5) Villalba was not a municipality until 1917, dont know to what municipality it belonged to
 * 6) Cataño was not a municipality until 1927, before this it apparently belonged to Bayamon
 * 7) Rio Piedras was a municipality until 1951, when it was merged into San Juan
 * 8) Canovanas was not a municipality until 1909, don't know to what municipality it belonged to
 * 9) San Lorenzo was known as San Miguel de Hato Grande, don't know when the name change occurred.

Some of the changes could be done to the map with this info, but more could be missing and some of the municipalities created later I dont know to which municipality they belonged to. Hope this helps in something, I will try to get more information. El Johnson (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I finally got a map, will upload during the week. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Casualties
I was just wondering if the Bombardment of San Juan Spanish casualties have been added to the Puerto Rican campaign box?

I have added the U.S. casualties from the engagement because I knew that the origional casualties listed were from the land battles. I am just curious, if theres one thing we need to do correctly on wiki battle articles, its casualties. Thanks--Az81964444 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

moved sections
I have moved the "Spies in Puerto Rico" section to the "Preparations for Puerto Rican Campaign" section, entitled "American Preparations". In this case the American espionage began before the naval or land campaign began. Usually espionage is used to gain information prior to an individual attack or campaign. This is why I have moved it.

I have also destroyed the very long introduction. The information has been moved to the section entitled "Overview" in the overall "Land campaign in Puerto Rico" section.--Az81964444 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The move made of the "Spies in Puerto Rico" section is fine. Sorry, but the destruction of the long introduction was not. As a simple paragraph introduction the article would not have passed "GA". The current introduction was approved because it gave an idea of what the whole article would be about. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand, I read that big long indroduction, all of it was just a repeat of the information in the naval and land campaign sections. That is why I moved it to a section entitled "Overview". If you feel it should stay where it is, that is fine, it is just not the way I would do it. With just my simple introduction, that alone should tell the reader about what the whole article is about. How hard is it for someone to guess that the "Puerto Rican Campaign" is about the "Puerto Rican Campaign"? You say it has been approved, so clearly there must of been a discussion about it before, which decided the introductions approval. If so, that is okay with me, I will not change it back, thanks again.--Az81964444 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony the Marine, you seem to be the watch dog of this page, so clearly you have learned about it. Can you tell me if the Spanish/Puerto Rican casualties from the Bombardment of San Juan have been added to the Puerto Rican Campaign battle box? I added the American casualties but I was not sure if the Spanish/Puerto Rican casualties had been added by anyone else or not. If you have any information about it, please write me or add the info. yourself, thanks.--Az81964444 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Az81964444, nice weather in Arizona, did you get any rain in your area last night? I have in my watchlist all of the article (at least 500) that I created. In this case, User: Caribbean HQ and I made it what it is and is one of my favorites. As a military historian, I too am interested in knowing if there were any casualties as a result of the bombardment of San Juan and have consulted various friends and follow historians, among which are Rear Admiral Jay A. DeLoach and Col. Hector Andres Negroni (both ret.) and to date there are no records of casualties during said actions. However, if something comes up, it will be posted. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Replacements of images
Please discuss in this here "talk page" any suggestion or proposed replacements of images before doing so. The image of the Yauco rail terminal was removed when it shouldn't have been. As it is there are enough images depecting the troops and ships involved in the campaign, while the sole image of the rail terminal of Yauco, an important military objective as discribed in the article, was removed when it shouldn't have. I have placed once more the terminal image which was involved in an important part of the invassion. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The taking of Ponce was the greater military goal at the time. You will recall Miles invaded via the south out of step with previous arrangements with his superiors in Washighton. He thus had an urgent need to contact them, and Ponce had the only wire line within his reach. By then Yauco had already been secured; the rail terminal was a goal but not as great.  Miles needed Ponce asap lest he be court-marshalled. In the end, either photo is probably OK, in particular if there are sufficient ship pictures already. Regards,  Mercy11 (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong about the image. You know me, I'm an image man and I am going to use it and post it in the proper place. The military importance of the taking of the rail terminal of Yauco was that Miles was cutting off the lifeline which would have permitted the Spanish Army from traveling to Yauco from Ponce with supplies and the troops from Yauco from retreating and regrouping in Ponce. Ponce was a main objective however Miles entered Ponce and met no resistance at all, pero ... I will make an expansion of the short paragraph in order to accommodate the photo. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Battle of San Juan
I might just be going crazy but didn't someone write a Fourth Battle of San Juan page. I could have sworn I'd seen it in this campaign but maybe not. If so did someone delete it?--Az81964444 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no fourth Battle of San Juan, someone confused the Battle of Farjardo, which was a skirmish, as one of the San Juan battles. Note, only the flags of the countries involved in the campaign are going to be placed in the infobox and not the flags of the armed forces such as the US Naval Jack 45, since this is considered as decoration, plus others would have the right to place the flags of all the navies, armies and provisionl armies involved. As such things will get out of hand, not even the flag of Puerto Rico is placed. Gracis and Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alluding to what Tony the Marine said, there was concensus earlier to not include any subsidiary flags, as they are not required via Manual of Style. The debate over which flags to include was not worth arguing over when an acceptable solution to all was to simply make the arguement moot by removing all of them thus preventing further arguements from occuring about them.XavierGreen (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)