Talk:Stateside Puerto Ricans

Percentage of each state
Someone really should look at the demographic section were they state what percentage of Hispanics Puerto Ricans are in Puerto Rican heavy states, because by the 2010 census data does percentages are way off. I changed them, but then someone reverted them back, so someone should check that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FamAD123 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Spanish version
This article should have a Spanish version, so Puerto Ricans that only speak Spanish can read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.233.139 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. The article now exists in Spanish Wikipedia. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The chart..
that details the number of puerto ricans in the country and the percentage change over the years, I need to know how to change it, the population increased 26.3% over the previous decade, not 35%. Could someone change that or tell me how to, because I'm not sure how to.FamAD123 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Race and NY Bias
Why does this page seem so bias towards New York? Also why is this page, the only Hispanic page that acts like race doesnt exist?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spreadofknowledge (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please wait for a discussion before invoking terminology such as 'race'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Spreadofknowledge, your contributions would indicate that you have a WP:COI agenda regarding this article and other Hispanic and Latino articles. You've made a false claim regarding the issue of race being dealt with on other articles but not this one, as it has, in fact, been you who are trying to introduce it to other articles.


 * Note that, where you have bothered to use an edit summary, you have left discourteous statements rather than an informative edit summary. I can't even ascertain what it is that you seem to be so determined to prove (something about numbers of black people, white people and those of Chinese ethnicity?), but fiddling with census information and introducing an article from 2004 as a reference for interpreting the 2010 census statistics is tendentious editing at best. So far you've all you've brought to the table is shoehorning by means of inappropriate WP:SYNTH adding up to WP:OR. I don't like to be a talk page WP:CREEP but, as you're a newbie, it's essential. If you are unable to be neutral due to being too emotionally connected to any subject, you should not be editing in those areas. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Puerto Ricans in the United States
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Puerto Ricans in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "pewhispanic.org": From Cuban American:  From Dominican American:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

. Section removed in both instances. Had already been checked and failed WP:VERIFY as WP:OR and WP:POV use of source which examines US census self-identification being presented as if it were DNA or other scientific research into ethnicity. User responsible for POV-push resumed activities on these articles tweaking existing references (such as citing a 2004 article analysing 2010 census statistics); using the same sources which failed verification and declaring them as being factual here, here and here.

name
the article should either be renamed pr should give more attention to Puerto Ricans who live on the island. Even a Puerto Rican who hasn't ever left San Juan is still a Puerto Rican in the United States. As it stands, the article seems to treat Puerto Ricans as non-americans. I say it's offensive and bullhonkey. --108.45.56.173 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You could argue that this isn't the case since Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of America and not technically a part of America. The Unites States of America is made up of 50 states and 1 district, therefore Puerto Rico is not technically a part of the United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.198.145 (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Puerto Ricans in the United States
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Puerto Ricans in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Graces": From Afro-Puerto Rican: [http://www.ensayistas.org/antologia/XIXE/castelar/esclavitud/cedula.htm (Spanish) Real Cédula de 1789 "para el comercio de Negros". Proyecto Ensayo Hispánico]. Retrieved July 20, 2007 From Puerto Rico:  From Irish immigration to Puerto Rico: Real Cédula de 1789 "para el comercio de Negros", Retrieved November 29, 2008 From History of Puerto Rico: Real Cédula de 1789 "para el comercio de Negros" 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Some questions on terminology of the Migration section
In the section of New York City, one of the paragraphs starts:


 * The struggle for legal work and affordable housing remains fairly low and the implementation of favorable public policy fairly inconsistent.

In essence, the sentence is saying "The struggle remains fairly low." I'm not sure that is what was intended. I assume it's the availability of both that is low and the struggle is continuing.

Also, I am not sure what "the struggle for legal work." Is the issue a lack of work or a lack of legal jobs? What is meant by legal jobs?

Finally, in the section on Chicago there's this phrase:


 * In 1968 a turnt around gang, the Young Lords mounted protests and demonstrations ...

What is a "turnt around gang"? Is this the name of the gang or a type of gang? If this is an actual phrase and not vandalism, there should be a link to the meaning of those words. Ileanadu (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Spanish version of this article [] has the same problem:
 * La lucha por encontrar trabajo legitimo y viviendas asequibles sigue siendo relativamente baja...

"La lucha ... sigue ... baja"

I don't see anything about a gang. Ileanadu (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of sourced content
There has been spate of rollbacks by [[User:RichardWeiss]] to the articles, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and. These have been undone, since: If you wish to engage in constructive behavior (e.g. questioning the validity of sources), a good place to start would be on the talk pages of the respective articles. Resorting to random drive-by reverts is generally considered unhelpful. Thanks.
 * the editor failed to provide any rationale
 * the editor deleted sourced content

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.4.106 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The same highly controversial paragraph has been spammed into 16 different articles. I don't consider the encyclopedia.com source reliable, the article dabs are very poor and the whole paragraph bordering on racist. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2019
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is a consensus that is an acceptable target title, though the acceptance is not unanimous, which is not required for a consensus to emerge. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans in the United States → Stateside Puerto Ricans – I reverted an edit by. They recently moved page "Puerto Ricans in the United States" to "Stateside Puerto Ricans (Puerto Ricans in the United States)" with the reasoning Original title make Puerto Ricans look like foreign immigrants which they are not. They Stateside Puerto Ricans are ethnic Puerto Ricans living in the mainland and non-mainland states (e.g. Hawaii) of the U.S. I agree, but think that such a bold move needs discussion. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. KSFT  (t&#124;c) 04:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you relisting this because I'm not sure? The "relisting" is so small here that I almost missed it.


 * Oppose. The current title is clear and understandable, while the proposed title I find to be somewhat confusing at first glance. The current title is also WP:CONSISTENT with other similar articles like Native Americans in the United States. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Strongly Oppose, Neutral - For same reason as Rreagan007. I understand using "Stateside" within the article because it's shorter than "in the United States", (especially it's repeated over 50 times), but for the article title "Puerto Ricans in the United States" is better. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * updated to strong oppose, for the reason given by Mercy 11. Puerto Ricans have a distinct culture separate from the United States, language, history, etc. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated because I changed my mind. I remain neutral, in fact, in light of seeing the other article that is List of Stateside Puerto Ricans, it sounds nice. Stateside - leaning towards Stateside.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Question: Are Puerto Ricans who are in Puerto Rico considered outside the scope of the article? If that's the intent, then I think the current title is failing to clearly convey that concept, since Puerto Rico doesn't really seem to be outside the United States (e.g., since Puerto Ricans are U.S. Citizens with U.S. passports and have had that status for more than a century). Puerto Rico is U.S. soil. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is not a political article, but about ethnicity. So arguments like "Puerto Rico doesn't really seem to be outside the United States" are inconsequential to the article because outside or not, cultural traits such as the traditions, food, music, language, heritage, customs, etc., of Puerto Rican are what's being discussed. Puerto Rican culture is different from American culture, which is why the article exists. Puerto Ricans may have American citizenship, but that's, again, irrelevant here because it's a cultural heritage article, not one about the US-PR political relationship or about US citizenship vs. Puerto Rican citizenship. By the same token phrases like "Puerto Rico is U.S. soil", are irrelevant in the context of what the article needs to be titled because a change of flag didn't result in a change of culture from Puerto Rican to mainstream American (see, for example, Puerto Rican Day Parade).Mercy11 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – the title is somewhat confusing, since the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a part of the US and Puerto Ricans are American citizens. It is like saying Californians in the United States. <b style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC"> CookieMonster755 ✉ </b> 18:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * California is part of the United States, Puerto Rico isn't. The SCOTUS has establish that definition and the difference between that belonging to the US isn't the same as being part of the US (see it at Downes v. Bidwell). The US Census doesn't keep a record of Californians as an ethnic group, but |does for Puerto Ricans (p.9). See also Puerto Ricans in Chicago, Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia, Puerto Ricans in New York, etc. Mercy11 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - P.R. has its House of Representatives and Senate, its own spot in the Olympics and in Miss Universe pageants. It's a bit different than saying Californians in the U.S.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not really different. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and its residents are "in the United States". The U.S. states also have their own senates and houses of representatives/assemblies.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support move to Puerto Ricans in the continental United States. The current title is ambiguous as Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico are in the United States.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Major confusion reigns on this issue. Puerto Rico is not in the United States. I would appreciate it if you took a moment to read two articles 1) Article Four of the United States Constitution  and 2) Insular Cases  on Wikipedia and 1 of the many discussions on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Puerto_Rico#Puerto_Rico_is_not_%22in_the_United_States%22 --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The confusion is inherent to the subject due to Puerto Rico's ambiguous status. With good reason, people can, and more importantly do, refer to Puerto Rico as part of the United States. As such the present title is inadequate and needs to change.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been on the  List of controversial issues since July of 2009.  How would you suppose we'd resolve it now? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the issue also confusing because we don't have large communities of American Samoans or Virgin Islanders or people from Guam in the United States, thus there are no articles to serve as precedent. Right? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can resolve it while we also try to resolve the issue all across Wikipedia. If we imply that Puerto Rico is in the United States, which it is not, then we have to include Puerto Rico in all the United States lists... of birds, of this, of that, etc. Slavery in the United States would have to include Puerto Rico in the list right after Pennsylvania, etc. If this is what you are suggesting, then that is a major change across Wikipedia. We continue to not address the issue across Wikipedia - I think. So you like "Puerto Ricans in the continental United States" but doesn't that imply that P.R. is in the U.S.? Which it isn't.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Slow up. The issue is confusing on Wikipedia because the status of Puerto Rico is confusing. Like I said, one can quite reasonably argue that it both is and isn't "in" the United States. And people are doing that regardless of how Wikipedia titles this article, or whether an editor thinks they're technically wrong. Meaning that many readers of this article would find the title confusing as to whether the article includes Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico. "Puerto Ricans in the continental United States", or similar, is crystal clear and unambiguous as to who the subject is. And no, it doesn't imply that Puerto Rico is in the United States, only that it's not in the continental United States, which is a true and unambiguous fact.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, moving this one article wouldn't necessarily require some vast change across Wikipedia, though it's worth pointing out that articles like List of birds of the United States, Fauna of the United States, Geography of the United States, and many others, do include Puerto Rico already. Even Slavery in the United States, which ended before Puerto Rico was a U.S. territory, mentions Puerto Rico. Readers expect to find it, and we're here to serve the readers.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm starting to see your point. (and changed my vote) because there is this List of Stateside Puerto Ricans, also. So it might make sense to move the article. Stateside sounds good. Have a nice weekend. I have to do things, off WP for now.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also noting that I don't object to "Stateside Puerto Ricans". Seems a common enough name for Puerto Ricans in "the states".--Cúchullain t/ c 20:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support move to Stateside Puerto Ricans.
 * That said, here are some comments regarding the conversation of whether PR is or is not in the US, which (correctly or erroneously) appears to have been established as the determining criteria that would lead to solving the puzzle of whether or not the title should be changed to Stateside Puerto Ricans.


 * That said, then what? Well, just like the word Mercury requires a context to make clear what we are referring to (if chemistry, then it's the element; if astronomy, then it's the planet; if mythology, then it's the Roman God) the phrase "Puerto Rico is in the US" requires a context. Just like the word "mercury", there's nothing confusing about the phrase: the confusion is in those who fails to ask, "In what context"? Politically? Geographically? Some other context?


 * Politically, the Courts have established that PR is not part of the US. This, simply stated, follows from the definition of an unincorporated territory; if you are unincorporated, you haven't been incorporated, so you just are not a part of it. Some start asking "Is PR in the US", and the answer is not, it's not. (Just like saying "if you are a man, then you are a human".) So much for the political context.


 * Geographically, PR is not in the US either. This is is relatively straight-forward. Kansas, for example, is in both in the US and in the continental US. Hawaii is in the US, but not in the continental US. PR is neither in the US nor in the continental US. So much for the geographic context.


 * Some people create their own confusion by assuming that PR is/is not in the US because it is/is not included in this or that list of X-thing the United States. For example, "Puerto Rico is not included in the Population of the US, so it's not in the US", or "Puerto Rico is included in the Federal Highway Program (or any of other number of federal programs, or they don't need visa, or they use the US dollar), so it's in the US". And, the classic one, "They are US citizens, so Puerto Rico must be part of the US". These people fail to see that whether or not an entity, government, organization, or what have you includes or excludes PR from a listing of X (political, sports, cultural, scientific, geographic, birds, bats, or what have you) in the United States has absolutely no bearing on determining that PR is in the US. The Courts already answered that question many moons ago, and determined Puerto Rico is not in the US, and that it is also not a part of the US. Sorry, but stating that List of birds of the United States, Fauna of the United States, Geography of the United States, and many others, include Puerto Rico already, is a disgrace, and should be corrected and (which is I think what was implying) should not be allowed across Wikipedia. The straw that broke the camel's back in all of this PR inclusion in US articles must be at Slavery in the United States. Any inclusion of PR in that slavery article is ridiculous ignorance because Puerto Rico never had any slaves while under the US flag. As for birds, etc., if PR isn't a part of the US, then those birds simply aren't in the US. (Anyone who knows anything about Puerto Rico, knows that politics is a hotly-debated issue there, and, personally, I would attribute the inclusion of PR in any such articles to statehood-hungry Puerto Rican editors, and would consider it politically motivated and POV. Not taking sides, but I will report that historians have published on this behavior since 1899, and it is well documented.) The media doesn't help either. Wikipedia Commons is another offender, categorizing things like "Parks in Puerto Rico" under "Parks in the United States" and, the worst Commons offender, Museums in Puerto Rico under Museums in the US, when museums are a manifestation of the culture of a people, not of its politics. this article correctly lists Puerto Rico and US in its list; while this one erroneously states "Cerro de Punta...highest point in U.S. outside the 50 states". If Puerto Rico is not in the US (and geographically it isn't) stating "highest point in U.S. outside the 50 states" is an oxymoron.


 * Now, add to this that some editors insist in adding "United States" or "US" or "USA" to Puerto Rico-related articles (here is one example) when it adds nothing to the understanding of the article, and instead only contributes to confusing the public at large about the relationship between PR and the US, some readers "deducing" from that that PR must be part of the US, which it's not. Here is another example where the US has been inserted in the infobox, apparently the editor was trying to highlight that Puerto Rico is a part of the US -- but it's not. There are hundreds such cases I have come across.


 * As PR Wikiproject members come across Puerto Rico articles that may not be clear on this issue, we should probably make an effort of helping others understand that PR is not part of the US --and that it is not in the US-- by editing such articles accordingly.


 * Now, unlike the territory of Puerto Rico, which doesn't travel around (and thus you can't have "Puerto Rico in the US", "Puerto Rico in Mexico, Puerto Rico in Italy, etc.), Puerto Ricans do move around; so you can have Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico (or, simply Puerto Rican people), Puerto Rican in Greenland, Puerto Ricans in Russia and, yes, Puerto Ricans in the United States (because, again, PR is not in the US). The move request herein is whether or not the article should be:
 * Puerto Ricans in the United States
 * Stateside Puerto Ricans
 * Puerto Ricans in the continental United States
 * or something else.
 * We should not be discussing whether or not Puerto Rico is in the United States with an eye at concluding, from that, whether or not the article should be named one way or the other. I believe "Stateside Puerto Ricans" is good compromise because it gets across the message that it doesn't include Puerto Ricans in the Island, while at the same time avoiding the risk of perpetuating any further confusion on the uninformed minds - whether readers at large or Wikipedia's own editors. I don't like "Puerto Ricans in the continental United States" because the island of Puerto Rico, unlike Hawaii, is part of the continent that mainland US is a part of (the continent of North America), thus it's definitely confusing since the article doesn't include Puerto Ricans in the Island. Mercy11 (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I just wanted to mention something about the Governor of Puerto Rico. On her Twitter, she has Puerto Rico, USA. I know it's not relevant but I just wanted you to know that and perhaps she had an option to choose "Puerto Rico", or "Puerto Rico, USA" and she chose "Puerto Rico, USA" because- I don't know, like I said maybe Twitter didn't give her an option, or because as she has stated, she wants to collaborate with President Donald Trump and also she  may want statehood for PR- she meaning "the governor of PR, at the moment".--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether Twitter provides her the option to choose or not, but as the Governor of Puerto Rico, she obviously has a political agenda. She is a member of the New Progressive Party, which advocates statehood. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: As a fellow Puerto Rican myself who has been working on this Wikipedia page as well, “Stateside Puerto Ricans” is honestly not a bad a idea. Like what user above said, it gets the message across, instead of reading “Puerto Rican’s in the United States” which is just a ridiculously Long title, “Stateside Puerto Rican’s” is much more simple to grasp. I also think like the Mexican American page we should have a split Puerto Rican flag and American flag to resemble the stateside Puerto Rican’s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qzonkos (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move cleanup
--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * revised defaultsort template for category use
 * revised West Indian Americans
 * revised Puerto Ricans outside Puerto Rico
 * revised Hispanic and Latino Americans navbox
 * revised Demography of the United States (also revised the article to update the template so it would not rely on a redirect)
 * revised wikidata label

Puerto Rican citizenship
Puerto Ricans do not lose their Puerto Rican citizenship when they move to a state in the U.S. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)