Talk:Roberto Arango

Removal of section about statehood letter
I just removed this: In March, 2010, a letter to the US Congress written by Arango became the source of much ridicule in Puerto Rico and on Capitol Hill. With the letter Arango formally petitioned Congress for Puerto Rico to be allowed entrance into the Union as a state. Among other things, Arango argued that Puerto Rico should become a state because Puerto Rico was a bilingual nation with "English and Spanish as official languages." Nonetheless, the poorly written letter proved quite the opposite. Errors in conjugation, punctuation, and overall syntax were prevalent throughout the letter and demonstrated a clear lack of knowledge of the English language. Days after being sent to Congress, the letter was forwarded throughout Capitol Hill and became the topic of conversation around the water cooler. It was later posted on several sites on the internet and severely criticized.

First, the two sources are not very good. The first is to what is purported to be the original document. The second is to a blog post. The interpretation of his letter given in the passage above doesn't very well match the argument that the Senator put forward. We make it seem that he argued that because Puerto Rico is bilingual, it should become a state. That is not his argument at all.

Given his current woes, I assume many people are reading this article, so I hope that if this gets added back in, it is added back more carefully, with better sourcing. But it is unclear to me that it matters enough to mention at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added back the section about the statehood letter with more references, but left the text intact:


 * 1. The first source, which is a copy of the original letter to Congress, is actually a very good one. It is from the WSKN Radio Isla 1320 AM's Posterous news blog, note the header on the page (you can see the complete blog here http://radioisla1320.posterous.com), and it is administrated by Julio Rivera Saniel, one of Radio Isla's journalists. Radio Isla 1320 is an award winning Puerto Rican news radio station and a member of the Asociación de Periodistas de Puerto Rico - ASPPRO (the Puerto Rican Association of Journalists). Which adds some weight to the argument that this is in fact a copy of the actual letter sent to Congress.


 * 2. I have also added another news source:


 * http://dialogodigital.com/index.php/Dialogo/Lingua/Dialogico/Carcajada-Roberto-Arango-ensenara-ingles-en-Sigui-Mi.html


 * This is an article published by Diálogo Digital, the online version of the University of Puerto Rico newspaper Diálogo (http://dialogodigital.com/index.php/Dialogo/Quienes-Somos/Quienes-Somos.html). Diálogo is also an award winning newspaper, and a member of ASPPRO. (Just for the sake of it, here is a link to the 2010 ASPPRO National Journalism Awards, you may note that both Radio Isla 1320 and Diálogo won awards,http://www.asppro.org/semana-de-la-prensa/itinerario-2010/250-laudos-premio-nacional-de-periodismo-2010.html).


 * 3. And I added a other blog sources discussing the letter:


 * http://poder5.blogspot.com/2010/03/roberto-arango-escribe-ingles.html
 * http://barriomulas.com/wp/?p=1805


 * 4. I don't think that this paragraph is saying that bilingualism is the only reason Arango gives for statehood. I think it is clear that he states other reasons. Moreover, the notion that "With the letter Arango formally petitioned Congress for Puerto Rico to be allowed entrance into the Union as a state," and that "Among other things, Arango argued that Puerto Rico should become a state because Puerto Rico was a bilingual nation," is backed by Arango's own letter which clearly states that "All, of the above are facts," including Puerto Rico's bilingualism, "that are indicative and conclusive that the only logical step for which Puerto Rico has been preparing over the past 112 years is to become a permanent state of the union."


 * 5. Now, I can see how it might seem trivial, but to Puerto Ricans who live in a territory with little to no authority over itself because it has been subject to one ruling power or another for the past 500 years, and whose future status as a perpetual colony, or a state, or an independent nation rests in the hands of the US Congress, that one of their leading politicians formally petitioned statehood is no mere triviality. And, thus, the manner and correctness in which it was done becomes important, especially for those who, like Arango, advocate statehood.
 * --70.45.142.148 (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * One more thing, it's an honor being edited by you.--70.45.142.148 (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with JW: all the above sources are from blogs, which are not typically considered reliable sources because they are self-published without editorial control. Although blogs hosted by well-regarded publications are sometimes allowable, WP:BLP requires that editors "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources" and WP:BLOGS specifically directs editors to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people". AV3000 (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies, for not sticking to the biography of living people standard. I see now how most of those sources don't measure up, even the Radio Isla 1320's blog, which might be managed by one of its reporters, but might not be under Radio Isla's editorial control. What I don't understand is why Diálogo Digital, doesn't measure up either. It is a recognized digital newspaper in Puerto Rico, it is not a blog, or self-published. It has an editorial board (you can find more information on the bottom of this page http://dialogodigital.com/index.php/Dialogo/Quienes-Somos/Quienes-Somos.html) and as I posted earlier, it has even won local journalism awards. How does it no make the cut? I have also found two other sources, one is a newspaper article not available online from The Puerto Rico Daily Sun (their main website http://www.prdailysun.com/), and the other is an opinion column from another Puerto Rican newspaper"s mobile website, El Nuevo Dia (this would be the opinion piece http://www.elnuevodia.com/wap/columna-elnuevodia-684650.html and this is the news paper's main website http://www.elnuevodia.com/). Can I cite a newspaper article that is not online, or an opinion piece that is only available from a newspaper's mobile website?


 * I have also realized that, to further clarify Puerto Rico's bilingualism as one of Arango's many arguments, the text would read as such: "With the letter Arango formally petitioned Congress for Puerto Rico to be allowed entrance into the Union as a state. Arango argued that, among other things, Puerto Rico should become a state because Puerto Rico was a bilingual nation with "English and Spanish as official languages." "


 * I have not posted the paragraph back hoping for some feedback. Thanks. (Maybe I should create an account).--70.45.142.148 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi/hola - apologies, you're right that the first source is not a blog; I think it may be acceptable but only for the purpose of referencing the letter document, not the (humorist) contributor's commentary, which does not appear to be of BLP caliber. The PR Daily Sun article is definitely a high-quality reliable source even though it's no longer available online (I looked for it as well) - just please be careful to paraphrase it with a neutral tone. Opinion/editorial columns are not a reliable source for facts, but may be a possible source for commentary as long as it's properly attributed; it helps if the author is in some sense notable.  For example, "According to X, Arango blah blah blah." AV3000 (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

D.O.B.? Personal idenifying data
I suppose this man was born, if not on a certain date in a certain place (say peradventure he is a foundling), then at least in a certain year.

Why is that piece of info not available? We have years of birth for Buddha, Zaratusthra and Egyptian pharaoes, but not for a living person??!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.111 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure anyone here knows how to get that information. I know an editor who might know what reference sources to look at, so I will ask him. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)