Talk:White Puerto Ricans

Orphaned references in White Puerto Rican
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 White Puerto Rican'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 "Graces2": From Corsican immigration to Puerto Rico: Archivo General de Puerto Rico: Documentos Retrieved August 3, 2007 From Royal Decree of Graces of 1815: Archivo General de Puerto Rico: Documentos From Yauco, Puerto Rico:  From Irish immigration to Puerto Rico: Archivo General de Puerto Rico: Documentos, Retrieved November 29, 2008 

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 ⚡ 08:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yandel is a white Puerto Rican?
Really? His brother Gadiel definitely doesn't look white.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.201.219 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

European
Not that I feel the need to discuss this. The Canary Islands, the main origin of puerto rico, are NOT in Europe. They are off the coast off the Western Sahara, even further south than Morocco proper. Canary Islanders are descendants of both Andalusian settlers and local indigenous Guanches. The Guanches, in any case, were genetically and culturally an African Berber people. Hence, caucasian, not european is correct. Asilah1981 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You should feel the need to discuss this. Because you are wrong on both sides of your argument. 1, please see Canary Islands as you have already clearly been asked to check. It is unambiguously stated there that most Canary Islanders are European. 2, please see Caucasus and tell me how near or far any part of Europe is to the Canary Islands compared to that distant region of Asia. 3, please see Caucasian -- a disambiguation page that does not support any of your definitions of "Caucasian" -- this is called Original Research and has no purpose here. The correct and unambiguous terms are either "European" if you mean someone from Europe (such as people from the Canary Islands are) or "White" if you mean someone who is white (such as people from the Canary Islands are). Lastly, do keep in mind that "Africa" is not a small, isolated nation full of dark-skinned people that you see on TV but a diverse continent full of many different peoples and cultures, and, yes, skin colors. And that people from North Africa in general, including Morocco, are also usually considered to be White people. Please stop reverting the page to support your OR. Nowhere on wikipedia or off is it said that the mixture of a North African population with a European one is called "Caucasian", that is either an outdated word for White people, or a specific reference to a region and its population. Most important of all, respect what the source says. JesseRafe (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok,JesseRafe lets see.... Canary Islanders (a place I know very well and have been to multiple times) are NOT mostly European (ethnically), they are genetically a mixture of the indigenous African Guanche people and European settlers. They do not consider themselves European except in the sense that they belong to the European Union, have European citizenship and are hispanic. I have no issue with the term White People (although in much of the western world - particularly the Anglo and French speaking world - North Africans are not considered white. Our main issue is caucasian. I use this term because European is obviously factually incorrect, and white seems too restrictive a term in the english language. Caucasian is a word which includes the peoples of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. It is not outdated and still in common use in the US, it also lacks the identity connotations of "white". In the Canary Islands, people are generally Caucasian of mixed European and African (and significant sub-saharan) ancestry). There is just no way around it my friend. No need to explain Africa to me I know the continent well. In Sudan or Mauritania, people who are blacker than 90% of those who consider themselves black in the US are considered white by neighboring ethnicities.

To summarize: European is wrong, White is ok but problematic. Asilah1981 (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Btw,JesseRafe why are you asking me to check Canary Islands?? You seem slightly confused on this topic to me.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To summarize: HOW MANY TIMES MUST I LINK YOU TO THE CAUCASIAN PAGE BEFORE YOU READ IT INSTEAD OF JUST GUESSING WHAT IT SAYS? European is correct, White is correct, Caucasian is wrong. And please, seriously, where in the world did this "African+European=Caucasian" thing come from??? Look at ANY of the articles we are discussing. STOP doing original research. Why am I asking you to check that page? Are you kidding me? So that you read it!!! This is not about your opinion on who is black or white or how well you know an area. JesseRafe (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafe Lets tone it down a bit ok? I just saw you are right that the article Caucasian race is a bit dodgy (I dont like the word race either)- you can see why I used it though from the map provided in the article. Also, I read the link Canary Islands and where does it say they are European? I mean they are Spanish citizens so legally they are European much as people in French Guayana are but thats that...Asilah1981 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Also JesseRafewhat about a Puerto Rican of Lebanese descent? They are considered white in Latin America but not European. Do you not see the problem with the definition here?Asilah1981 (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Canary Islands.
Many have African ancestry as well, particularly since Canary Islanders who colonized the island from Spain already had considerable African ancestry inherited from ancestral Guanche populations.


 * "We found significant differences for the Northwest African influence among Spanish populations from as low as ≈5% in Spanish from the Iberian Peninsula to as much as ≈17% in Canary Islanders, whereas the sub-Saharan African influence was negligible."
 * "We found significant differences for the Northwest African influence among Spanish populations from as low as ≈5% in Spanish from the Iberian Peninsula to as much as ≈17% in Canary Islanders, whereas the sub-Saharan African influence was negligible."


 * "The majority of lineages (93%) were from West Eurasian origin, being the rest (7%) from sub-Saharan African ascription."
 * "The majority of lineages (93%) were from West Eurasian origin, being the rest (7%) from sub-Saharan African ascription."


 * "We find strong statistical evidence of recent selection in three chromosomal regions, including the human leukocyte antigen region on chromosome 6p, chromosome 8q, and chromosome 11q." No word about the Canary Islands.
 * "We find strong statistical evidence of recent selection in three chromosomal regions, including the human leukocyte antigen region on chromosome 6p, chromosome 8q, and chromosome 11q." No word about the Canary Islands.


 * Puerto Rico – DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000(DEAD LINK)
 * Recent Genetic Selection in the Ancestral Admixture of Puerto Ricans. American Journal of Human Genetics. (2007).
 * Martínez Cruzado, Juan C. (2002). "The Use of Mitochondrial DNA to Discover Pre-Columbian Migrations to the Caribbean: Results for Puerto Rico and Expectations for the Dominican Republic". KACIKE: The Journal of Caribbean Amerindian History and Anthropology [On-line Journal], Special Issue, Lynne Guitar, Ed. Available at: http://www.kacike.org/MartinezEnglish.pdf [Date of access: 25 September 2006]

Hence the claim is not supported by the sources cited. There is no evidence for any "considerable African ancestry" for the Canary Islanders. Kleuske (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you joking Kleuske or are you just trying to be annoying? I notice you are tracking me and reverting my edits on a range of issues (bullfighting etc...), including this one which you clearly don't know of or understand. If you have a personal issue with me please let me know in a more constructive way. I don't remember ever having engaged with you, unless you have another account. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, Kleuske since I suspect pictures will be easier for you to understand, have a look at this. The Canary Islands are the set of islands on the bottom left of each of the illustrations representing Europe. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article/PMC3718088/figure/fig02/ Asilah1981 (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was expecting a rational discussion. So I was disappointed, but not really surprised. I note you have not answered any of the above points. I will revert to a properly sourced version. Kleuske (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Kleuske demonstrates clear anti-African bias here.
 * Posts a paper that literally is in opposition to his point and confusingly concludes that the claim - a significant portion of PR's lineage comes from the Canary Islands - isn't supported by the sources cited.
 * "We found significant differences for the Northwest African influence among Spanish populations from as low as ≈5% in Spanish from the Iberian Peninsula to as much as ≈17% in Canary Islanders, whereas the sub-Saharan African influence was negligible." shiznaw (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion is seven-and-a-half years old and you think it's best to reopen it by posting your remark somewhere in the middle, misgendering me and then accusing me of "anti-African bias"? Nice going. That'll promote a fruitful discussion. From someone active since 2008, I expect better. Kleuske (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Focus on your biased viewpoints that several here have clearly pointed out. Everything else you're posting is a distraction from the topic. shiznaw (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Kleuske So far you have not made any points contradicting the significant African substrate in Canary Islander DNA which not one single study denies and which has been detected in Puerto Rican populations. When you do manage to articulate an argument I will respond. For now I will recover the sourced statement and deleted sources. Asilah1981 (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again... This discussion is seven and a half years old. Do you really expect me to remember or wade through all this text again? Kleuske (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You'll find my argument above: None of the sources you mentioned, supports the claims you made. Please consult WP:BURDEN. Thank you. 09:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleuske (talk • contribs)

Kleuske I suggest you read carefully below. You are still failing to articulate an argument beyond copy pasting things I strongly suspect you do not understand.

The most frequent (maternal-descent) mtDNA haplogroup in Canary Islands is H (37.6%), followed by U6 (14.0%), T (12.7%), not-U6 U (10.3%) and J (7.0%). Two haplogroups, H and U6 alone account for more than 50% of the individuals. Significant frequencies of sub-Saharan L haplogroups (6.6%) is also consistent with the historical records on introduction of sub-Saharan slave labour in Canary Islands. However, some Sub-Saharan lineages are also found in North African populations, and as a result, some of these L lineages could have been introduced to the Islands from North Africa. A 2009 study of DNA extracted from the remains of aboriginal inhabitants found that 7% of lineages were haplogroup L, what leaves open the possibility that these L lineages were part of the founding population of the Canary Islands.

A 2003 genetics research article by Nicole Maca-Meyer et al. published in the European Journal of Human Genetics compared aboriginal Guanche mtDNA (collected from Canarian archaeological sites) to that of today's Canarians and concluded that "despite the continuous changes suffered by the population (Spanish colonization, slave trade), aboriginal mtDNA lineages constitute a considerable proportion [42–73%] of the Canarian gene pool".

Although the Berbers are the most probable ancestors of the Guanches, it is deduced that important human movements (e.g., the Islamic-Arabic conquest of the Berbers) have reshaped Northwest Africa after the migratory wave to the Canary Islands and the "results support, from a maternal perspective, the supposition that since the end of the 16th century, at least, two-thirds of the Canarian population had an indigenous substrate, as was previously inferred from historical and anthropological data." mtDNA haplogroup U subclade U6b1 is Canarian-specific and is the most common mtDNA haplogroup found in aboriginal Guanche archaeological burial sites.

Y-DNA, or Y-chromosomal, (direct paternal) lineages were not analysed in this study; however, an earlier study giving the aboriginal y-DNA contribution at 6% was cited by Maca-Meyer et al., but the results were criticized as possibly flawed due to the widespread phylogeography of y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b1b, which may skew determination of the aboriginality versus coloniality of contemporary y-DNA lineages in the Canaries. Regardless, Maca-Meyer et al. state that historical evidence does support the explanation of "strong sexual asymmetry...as a result of a strong bias favoring matings between European males and aboriginal females, and to the important aboriginal male mortality during the Conquest." The genetics thus suggests that native men were sharply reduced in numbers due to the war, large numbers of Spanish men stayed in the islands and married the local women, the Canarians adopted Spanish names, language, and religion, and in this way, the Canarians were Hispanicized.

Indeed, according to a recent study by Fregel et al. 2009, in spite of the geographic nearness between the Canary Islands and Morocco, the genetic heritage of the Canary islands male lineages, is mainly from European origin. Nearly 67% of the haplogroups resulting from are Euro–Eurasian (R1a (2.76%), R1b (50.62%), J (14%), I (9.66%) and G (3.99%)). Unsurprisingly the Spanish conquest brought the genetic base of the current male population of the Canary Islands. Nevertheless, the second most important haplogroup origin is Northern Africa. E1b1b (14% including 8.30% of the typical berber haplogroup E-M81), E1b1a and E1a (1.50%), and T (3%) haplogroups are present at a rate of 33%. Even if a part of these "eastern" haplogroups were introduced by the Spanish (they are well represented in Spain), we can suppose that a good portion of this rate was already there at the time of the conquest. According to the same study, the presence of autochthonous North African E-M81 lineages, and also other relatively abundant markers (E-M78 and J-M267) from the same region in the indigenous Guanche population, "strongly points to that area [North Africa] as the most probable origin of the Guanche ancestors". In this study, Fregel et al. estimated that, based on Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup frequencies, the relative female and male indigenous Guanche contributions to the present-day Canary Islands populations were respectively of 41.8% and 16.1%.

An autosomal study in 2011 found an average Northwest African influence of about 17% in Canary Islanders with a wide interindividual variation ranging from 0% to 96%. According to the authors, the substantial Northwest African ancestry found for Canary Islanders supports that, despite the aggressive conquest by the Spanish in the 15th century and the subsequent immigration, genetic footprints of the first settlers of the Canary Islands persist in the current inhabitants. Paralleling mtDNA findings, the largest average Northwest African contribution was found for the samples from La Gomera.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asilah1981 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok.A wall of text with a number of claims. I'm not interested in your claims, so I'll focus on the sources. After all, this is what the dispute is about.
 * "Although the Canary Islands were settled by humans, possibly of Berber origin, as late as 2500 years ago, the precise course and numbers of early migrations to the archipelago remain controversial. We have therefore analysed mtDNA variation (HVS-I as well as selected RFLP sites) in 300 individuals from the seven Canary Islands. The distribution and variation across the islands in a specific mtDNA clade of Northwest African ancestry suggest that there was one dominant initial settlement process that affected all the islands, from east to west. This indicates that a certain genetic affinity of present-day Canary Islanders to Northwest African Berbers mainly stems from the autochthonous population rather than slaves captured on the neighbouring African coast. The slave trade after the European conquest left measurable, though minor, traces in the mtDNA pool of the Canary Islands, which in its majority testifies to the European immigration.|Phylogeographic patterns of mtDNA reflecting the colonization of the Canary Islands" (Phylogeographic patterns of mtDNA reflecting the colonization of the Canary Islands)
 * I note the article does not mention "African ancestry", let alone "considerable African ancestry"
 * "Mitochondrial portraits of the Madeira and Açores archipelagos witness different genetic pools of its settlers"
 * I note that neither the Azores, not Madeira have anything to do with the Canary Islands. They're not that far off, but still, if you want to make a point about the Brits, you do not cite sources concerning the French.
 * "The majority of lineages (93%) were from West Eurasian origin, being the rest (7%) from sub-Saharan African ascription.", the article concludes that the origins of original settlers are unclear. The article does not mention any "considerable African ancestry" of the modern population (modern in archeological terms).
 * "Phylogeny of the mtDNA haplogroup U6. Analysis of the sequences observed in North Africa and Iberia" (again, no mention of the Canary Islands, let alone Puerto Rico.
 * "Ancient mtDNA analysis and the origin of the Guanches". Concludes that mtDNA from Guanches is relatively common. It does not conclude, however, that the Guanches are of African descent.
 * "Demographic history of Canary Islands male gene-pool: replacement of native lineages by European"
 * My conclusion is that the statement "Many have African ancestry as well, particularly since Canary Islanders who colonized the island from Spain already had considerable African ancestry inherited from ancestral Guanche populations." about the white population of Puerto Rico is not in any way, shape or form supported by any of the sources above. The statement and its supposed supporting sources are a classical example of WP:SYNTH.
 * Yours truly, Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kleuske Your contention that the numerous articles, data, and papers cited above are a classical example of WP:SYNTH is a misnomer. Synthesis is the result of combining two (or more) desperate but tangentially-related sources to yield an unrelated conclusion. That's not what any of these sources are doing. You are clearly biased and for whatever reason cannot be objective about this topic  shiznaw (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Kleuske, look I am going to try not to get annoyed and be civil. You are wrong. I think in your haste to edit war with me you have overlooked how wrong you are. When you say that no study concludes that Guanches were of African descent, I'm just at loss for words. How can I argue with that? Its like saying, "no study concludes Germans were of European descent". I suggest you settle down, read a bit about the Canary Islands, the Guanches, about Population genetics and about geography and history generally. Then we continue talking.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ummm... Bring a source that support your claim,and i'll be off your back. So far, none of the sources you provided support your claims on White Puerto Ricans (not Guanches, not Canary Islanders, but Puerto Ricans). So please, If you have a source supporting your claim, show it. Kleuske (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Kleuske The last one, I just added for example. Its from the newspaper El Pais, one of the most important in the Spanish speaking world. The thing is, I am not googling stuff to add to this article, its all on other connected articles within the Spanish and English wikipedia, and its not me who added them. Its just not a matter of controversy, that's why I don't really know how to engage with you and I'm getting so irritated. If your argument is that Guanches were not African, something which is proven genetically, then go to the relevant page and try to argue your point there! Asilah1981 (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I read it. And though El Pais is a respected newspaper, my expirience is that newspapers are not the best source for scientific findings. Now if you had the original published paper to go along with that, it would be a different matter. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Then I think we can let the ANI go and both discuss here reasonably. I apologize for being aggressive.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

http://www.uprm.edu/portada/article.php?id=2371 http://www.listindiario.com/la-republica/2008/10/9/76677/print TC)

Kleuske,Here is the quote from Puerto Rican source. They are quoting head of Molecular Biology of Puerto Rico University, Juan Carlos Martinez Cruzado. I cannot find the actual study itself for now. Its out there somewhere I'm sure. Similar results have appeared for Dominican Republic.

http://www.uprm.edu/portada/article.php?id=2371 http://www.listindiario.com/la-republica/2008/10/9/76677/print TC)

Los guanches “Es sorprendente la presencia de genes guanches y euroasiáticos en la población dominicana”, dijo por teléfono a LISTÍN DIARIO Juan Carlos Martínez-Cruzado, director del Departamento de Biología Molecular de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, recinto Mayagüez, y encargado de la contraparte puertorriqueña en el estudio “Orígenes continentales de las primera poblaciones de las islas del Caribe y los movimientos migratorios que los formaron”.

El investigador explicó que hay dos maneras en que los guanches, cuya presencia también ha sido confirmada en Puerto Rico, pudieron haber llegado a las Antillas: la primera es que las islas Canarias, cuya conquista fue completada por los españoles en 1495, sirvieron, entre otras cosas, como fuente de esclavas blancas en las primeras décadas de presencia española en las Antillas. La segunda, dijo Martínez-Cruzado, es que siglos después ocurrieron migraciones de canarios pobres al Caribe que venían a trabajar la tierra.

“Gran parte de estos canarios eran mestizos y de seguro trajeron ADN mitocondrial de origen guanche a las mismas”, respondió el científico puertorriqueño en un cuestionario que LISTÍN DIARIO también le envió por correo electrónico.

Asilah1981 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Asilah, this is borderline unreadable - not only do you not indent but not sign your paragraphs, how can you win someone over to your side? As it stands, you have presented no information that supports "considerable African ancestry" at all. In fact, your research proves that this speculation/weasel words ought to be removed. 17% is not considerable, and Ns of 7 are dubious for any study. What did the authors of these studies conclude? We can only use those conclusions, not make our own conjectures based on the data. And ditto with newspapers, they are for sale. All news media is famous for distorting scientific results for headlines/soundbites across disciplines, that's why Wikipedia uses them for news but not for science articles. Also, BURDEN. Please, enough of this nonsense. This is not the place for your crusade and it's all for, what? A sentence? In an article about White Puerto Ricans, what does it matter that 17.4% of Canary Islanders have Northwest African mitochondrial DNA? To say nothing of the fact that NW Africans are generally white themselves. It's moot. Drop it. JesseRafe (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * JesseRafe: Kleuske and I are already talking this matter cordially. We have already come to an understanding. I have made no research simply brought in content (some 10 scientific studies discussing the issue and a couple of news articles quoting the head of Molecular biology in PR university) of contingent articles from both English and Spanish wikipedia. If the ancestry of all Puerto Ricans overall (including black puerto ricans) is 21% african in origin, how is 17% in Canary Islanders "not considerable"? If its not relevant why is this article alleging African/Slave ancestry of "White Puerto Ricans" when no race-based study on Puerto Ricans has ever been made? Also, we are discussing African ancestry (as opposed to Eurasian ancestry), why do you bring in skin tone? The question is what does this matter to you. Perhaps you should drop it, my friend.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because literally the first word in the subject is WHITE. That is all that matters in regards to this article. None of your agenda about proving that 17% of Canarians mDNA is "African" changes that. So your question of why bring up skin tone is painfully obtuse. Why bring up anything other than skin tone considering that this subject of this article. JesseRafe (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I notice you are editing aggressively in lots of areas you have no knowledge of, such as the origin of the Spanish language. I guess you are just trying to make a point. The sentence and sources you are trying to edit out does not mention skin tone, it discusses African ancestry. Canary Islanders have African ancestry and they brought it to the Canary Islanders, sources provided are clear on that. No more to discuss. On another point, I don't understand the Anglo-American obsession with gauging/deciding how "white" Latin Americans are. If you want to remove the statement, logically the whole genetics section will have to go since, as I said, there are no studies on how "pure" white Puerto Ricans are. If you want to start a section on skin tone (that would be very American of you) please be my guest. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't about skin tone per se or the Canary Islands. It is about White Puerto Ricans. How dense can you be? And I happen to know a lot more about the origins of the Spanish language than you, I'm sure of it. Unless you claim that Pelayo didn't speak a variety of Gothic, if you even know what either of those words mean or where the Goths came from. But once again you are discussing the editor not the edits with personal attacks and insinuations and going completely off topic both in respects to me (whom you know nothing about), Americans' "obsessions" (whom you know nothing about), and who or what is an "Anglo-American"... all to make baseless conjectures about your racist Aryan "pure white" nonsense - something that only you seem to care about, all while completely missing the point about what this article is about. Same with your earlier obstinance about your misuse and misunderstanding the basic vocabulary words such as "White" and "Caucasian". And, FYI, Puerto Ricans are Americans so your distinction between what race you think are and whom you believe to be "obsessed" with that fact is beyond ironic. JesseRafe (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafe I did not remember it was with you I had had that discussion about the term caucasian. Listen, you were right on that one, I thought caucasian was the term used in the US census, turns out I was wrong and I accepted it. But on both these topics you are being headstrong and excessively combative. What I was editing out of the other article regarding the Spanish language is clearly wrong (I have explained why in its talk page). I am a Spanish speaker who knows the language and its origin well. Secondly, in this case, there is a section which discusses non-European ancestry of white Puerto Ricans. I didn't put it there, but since its there it should be correct. The non-european ancestry of Puerto Ricans can be divided between African and Taino, both are mainly on the maternal side due to european colonialism firstly in the Canaries, then in Puerto Rico. The African ancestry can be of either West African slave origin or Guanche origin. Genetic studies cannot tell skin colour (Guanches were indeed fairer than Senegalese) but they can tell African ancestry, whereby Guanches and other West Africans cluster together. They also share haplogroups on the maternal (L) and paternal side (E). Its not a reason to get upset. I dislike the "ancestry" section altogether. I just want it to be exact if it has to be there.AAnd that is what the sources are for. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you draw conclusions from those sources. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, isn't intended for your conclusion, but what reliable sources say on the subject. You've added some more, and this time you claim it's not a question of WP:SYNTH, thus tacitly conceding the previous bunch of sources resulted in a synthesis of novel conclusions.
 * The latest batch of sources include:
 * which opens with the statement "The general public has been manufactured as a Nation of Ventriloquists." The rest of the website makes it clear quite quickly that it's a WP:FRINGE source, not some well respected scientific publication.
 * A short article in El Pais, which does not really provide much detail and does not support claims of "considerable African ancestry" of the white population of Puerto Rico.
 * Since you now admit the previous bunch of sources resulted ina WP:SYNTH-claim, adding WP:FRINGE sources does not help your argument.
 * Kleuske (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Kleuske Understood. So I remove the entire sentence which discusses african ancestry of white puertoricans since it is a WP:SYNTH-claim.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If you all agree?KleuskeAsilah1981 (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed that, unless it's explicitly stated by an RS, removal is the best course of action. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Additions to the lede
Per WP:LEDE, it is highly inappropriate to over-burden the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of and introduction to the actual article, not the place for fringe theories and lengthy excursions on tangents and and irrelevant comparisons, e.g. to the one-drop rule, which has nothing to do with this article. I didn't start a talk page section previously, because this combative editor (see my user talk page) is clearly only here to disrupt and shout and has no interest in building a fact-based encyclopedia, but only expounding on their fringe ideas and making sure they "win", also there was no evidence of them even engaging in discussion prior and as they seemed to only log on every few months, seemed unnecessary. But here's the talk page now. Please cite your policy-backed rationale for including such tangential and heavy-handed content in the lede to this article. JesseRafe (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in White Puerto Ricans
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 White Puerto Ricans'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 "Kinsbruner1996": From Afro–Puerto Ricans:  From Stateside Puerto Ricans:  

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 ⚡ 22:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I had updated the origin of the identity of whiteness regarding white Puerto Ricans shiznaw (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Anthropological Etymology
All I did was include the Anthropological Etymology for users to better understand just how white PR came about. That's it. Don't want to start an edit war or any sort of fight here. Just providing historical facts. shiznaw (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)