Talk:Puerto Rico

typo

There is a sentence in the article:

"This was the first time that the current Puerto Rican was unfurled in Puerto Rican soil. "

which should probably read:

"This was the first time that the current Puerto Rican flag was unfurled on Puerto Rican soil."

(insert the word "flag", change "in" to "on")

Sports Section

I wanted to note that in the Sport section that mentions Orlando Cepeda and Roberto Clemente as baseball hall of famers, there is now a third Puerto Rican who has been elevated to the Baseball Hall of Fame: Roberto Alomar, in 2011. His name should be added to the list. Sportingjim (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Done! --Seablade (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

2008 case, Why is undue weight?

Can explain, Why the following information is undue weight? This decision is jurisprudence; is law (the collection of rules imposed by authority).

As such, the ties between the United States and Puerto Rico have strengthened in a constitutionally significant manner. Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2255. Congress, thus, is no longer justified in treating Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory of dissimilar traditions and institutions, when the Constitutional reality is otherwise. Id. It is the judicial branch that determines when and where the full terms of the Constitution apply. Id. at 2259; see also Trailer Marine Transport Corp., 977 F. 2d at 8 n.4 (holding that the issue of extending the Constitution to Puerto Rico is for the courts to decide). The Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution.26 Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories — only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one. Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees. To hold otherwise, would amount to the court blindfolding itself to continue permitting Congress per secula seculorum to switch on and off the Constitution. Boudemiene at 2259.

Proposal brief to be include on the article: A 2008 case in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico declared (without overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories - only the Supreme Court can), that Puerto Rico no longer remain an unincorporated territory. The court says that although Congress has never enacted any affirmative language such as “Puerto Rico is hereby an incorporated territory,” its sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory. The court elaborated that the Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, (except for those provisions that relate to its federal character) and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated.

Reference:CONSEJO DE SALUD PLAYA DE PONCE, v. JOHNNY RULLAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

--Seablade (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I was the editor who objected to the inclusion of the MATERIAL from a lower court, the text above must be directed to me, so I will answer it.

There are two (intertwined) problems with the ADDITION in question: (1) the contents do not deal with the subject of the article directly ("Puerto Rico"), but with issues about one subject of the subject of the article (Political status of Puerto Rico), and there is an article already about that which this article points to, namely, (Political status of Puerto Rico). If anything that's where this sort of information would belong. However, --and this bring the second point I allude to above-- (2) the information is irrelevant both here (Puerto Rico) and there (Political status of Puerto Rico) anyway because (and I indicated this in my edit summary) in matters of the political status of Puerto Rico decisions of courts other than the U.S. Supreme Court do not matter. In fact, as you know from your own edit HERE, "The United States District Court is not a true United States court", thus lowering even further its capacity to rule on matters of constitutional law. Thus the undue weight.

According to the WP:UNDUE policy:

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."

If we replace "Flat Earth" by "Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory of the United States", the point should be clear.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Answer:

On the District Court of Puerto Rico from Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 596, 524) v. U.S. (Supra)

In the course of the opinion it was declared by the U.S. Supreme Court (p. 352, L. ed. p. 186, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 1119):

'Alaska is one of the territories of the United States. It was so designated in that order [referring to the order of this court assigning to the ninth circuit], and has always been so regarded. And the court established by the act of 1884 is the court of last resort within the limits of that territory. It is, therefore, in every substantial sense, the supreme court of that territory.'

According to the web site of the U.S. Judiciary System, on September 12, 1966, 80 Stat. 764, the District Court of Puerto Rico became a Constitutional Court: “This act granted life tenure during good behavior to future appointments to the two judgeships for the District of Puerto Rico, thus placing the court in the same status as other U.S. district courts.” The importance of tenure is stated in GLIDDEN COMPANY v. ZDANOK ET AL. 370 U.S. 530 (1962):

Tenure that is guaranteed by the Constitution is a badge of a judge of an Article III court. The argument that mere statutory tenure is sufficient for judges of Article III courts was authoritatively answered in Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 459-460: ". . . the argument is fallacious. It mistakenly assumes that whether a court is of one class or the other depends on the intention of Congress, whereas the true test lies in the power under which the court was created and in the jurisdiction conferred. Nor has there been any settled practice on the part of Congress which gives special significance to the absence or presence of a provision respecting the tenure of judges. This may be illustrated by two citations. The same Congress that created the Court of Customs Appeals made provision for five additional circuit judges and declared that they should [370 U.S. 530, 597] hold their offices during good behavior; and yet the status of the judges was the same as it would have been had that declaration been omitted. In creating courts for some of the Territories Congress failed to include a provision fixing the tenure of the judges; but the courts became legislative courts just as if such a provision had been included."

In Balzac v. People Of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922), the court used, as an argument of non-incorporation, the following statement regarding the court in Puerto Rico:

The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.

In Glidden, supra, the court made the following statement regarding courts in unincorporated territories:

Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 266 -267; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 -313; cf. Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 145 , 149, and to the consular courts established by concessions from foreign countries, In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 -465, 480. 18

The Article Three of the United States Constitution, establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. This constitutional article was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, and signed by the President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. From this moment on, judges appointed to serve on the Puerto Rico federal district court have been Article III judges appointed under the Constitution of the United States. In addition in 1984 one of the judges of the federal district court, Chief Judge Juan R. Torruella, a native of the island, was appointed to serve in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit with jurisdiction over Puerto Rico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire.

In September 12, 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed Public Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, which transformed the Article IV federal district court in Puerto Rico to an Article III Court. This Act of Congress was not conducted pursuant to Article IV of the Constitution, the Territorial Clause, but rather under Article III. This marks the first and only occasion in United States history in which Congress establishes an Article III Court in a territory other than the District of Columbia. From this moment on, judges appointed to serve on the Puerto Rico federal district court have been Article III judges appointed under the Constitution of the United States. Like their mainland brethren they are entitled to life tenure and salary protection. Senate Report 1504 reveals the reason for the enactment of this Law:

There does not appear any reason why the U.S. District Judges for the District of Puerto Rico should not be placed in a position of parity as to tenure with all other Federal Judges throughout our judicial system. Moreover, federal litigants in Puerto Rico should not be denied the benefit of judges made independent by life tenure from the pressures of those who might influence his chances of reappointment, which benefits the Constitution guarantees to the litigants in all other Federal Courts. These judges in Puerto Rico have and will have the exacting same heavy responsibilities as all other Federal district judges and, therefore, they should have the same independence, security, and retirement benefits to which all other Federal district judges are entitled.

See 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2786-90 (emphasis added); see also Examining Bd. of Engineers Architects and Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. at 595 n.26 (“The reason given for this [law] was that the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico ‘is in its jurisdiction, powers, and responsibilities the same as the U.S. district courts in the (several) states’.”). This important change in the federal judicialstructure of the island was implemented not as a request of the Commonwealth government, but rather at the repeated request of the Judicial Conference of the United States. See Senate Report No. 1504, 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2786-90.

The District Court of Puerto Rico is now established under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Needless to say the District Court of Puerto Rico belongs to the First District Court in Boston. Is it possible to have a Constitutional Court in an unincorporated territory? No, according to Balzac and Glidden.

The proposal update is to be performed on the current sub-section called Political Status of Puerto Rico. By the way I do not have any issue on the path to reach a consensus to mention a clarification that this reliable sources on the subject is at this moment a minority view. (It is not a tiny minority view because it is Law). I invite you to you and\or other Wikipideans to suggest a consensus proposal. By the way, the most important part of the update is the following:

It is the judicial branch that determines when and where the full terms of the Constitution apply. Id. at 2259; see also Trailer Marine Transport Corp., 977 F. 2d at 8 n.4 (holding that the issue of extending the Constitution to Puerto Rico is for the courts to decide). The Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution.26 Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories — only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place...

Regards, --Seablade (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

On the June 8, 2009 00:17 revision (LINK included) of this article I update the original phrase: ...the U.S. Constitution does not enfranchise US citizens residing in Puerto Rico.[42][43] with the following statement: ...the U.S. Constitution does not fully enfranchise US citizens residing in Puerto Rico.[42][43].

I can say for certain that the great majority of the U.S. Citizens in the States have the misconception that the U.S. Constitution does not enfranchise U.S. Citizens residing in Puerto Rico. Well, maybe a lot of people in Puerto Rico also have the same misconception. We should goes back to the incorrect statement of June 7, 2009? Of course not, this is an encyclopedia and Constitutional courts decision and U.S. Congress decisions and U.S. Federal Laws has a great reliable source proportion to the representation on the subject! --Seablade (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• No offense but you are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Your statements above would constitute WP:OR if added to the article. Those facts are irrelevant; the fact that matters is that the information you are proposing to add in the article can be misleading to readers: the information added can be interpreted as proof that Puerto Rico is moving towards statehood because (in your allegation) Puerto Rico has become an incorporated territory. And, to prove your theory, you are using the opinion of the district court in Puerto Rico in a case involving Medicare payments. That opinion has no bearance of the political status of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is not an incorporated territory. When something to the contrary is said by a compentent authority, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, then such statements can be added to the article. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message

• I have also perfomed THIS edit on the same subject, namely that Puerto Rico is now somehow an (incorporated) "part of the United States". There is no RS basis for this and the opinion of the district court in Puerto Rico acting on a Medicare case does not make it a part of the US. As the 3/11 President's Report says, both the President and Congress have a role to play to help Puerto Rico settle its status; the Courts (even the U.S. Supreme Court) is not included in the Report for these purposes. I remind everyone that on sensitive political issues like this one the best way to avoid POV is to add squarely from reliable sources that actually say something like "the report suggest etc etc ect", otherwise it runs the risk of WP:OR. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this messsage.

You are trying to personalize this! First of all, cease and desist to personalize this! It is not my statement, this must be clear it not OR it not POV it is not my statement; the statement was performed by an United States District Court in 2008! The court declared that the Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution! I do not have issues to mentioned the 1922 Supreme Court decision, My proposal is very clear and it is included the aforementioned proposal statement, you are assuming a lot of incorrect thing that I did not write. I always limited my updates to extreme reliable sources. On this case it is not the exception; the reliable sources used are the U.S. Congress Laws and the United States District Court decisions. This is not about your personal opinion or my personal opinion this is about the United States District Court decision that is law. That you do not like the court decision by your POV does not transform this on undue weight.

One additional thing, the territorial court created on the year 1900 by the U.S. Congress on Puerto Rico ceases to exist on 1966. The U.S. Congress transformed the territorial article IV court into an Article III Constitutional United States District Court by extending the article III constitution to the district. The United States District Court on the Puerto Rico jurisdiction born on 1966 and still in function today! The court created on the year 1900 adjourns on 1966! --Seablade (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement performed by an United States District Court in 2008 it is directly related to this article! The court declared that the Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution! This is a very reliable source I always limited my updates to extreme reliable sources. On this case it is not the exception; the reliable sources used are the U.S. Congress Laws and the United States District Court decisions. This is not about your personal opinion or my personal opinion this is about the United States District Court decision that is law. That you do not like the court decision by your POV does not transform this on an UNDUE policy violation. The article are just mention the court decision. It is not Undue weight mentioned a court decision related to the territories of the U.S. --Seablade (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As a side-issue to the UNDUE question, I'll mention the following here; I already mentioned this at this other talk page before I saw the note there asking that discussion continue here instead.

I note that the WP article on Gustavo Gelpí (the author of the opinion) says, "In his opinion, Judge Gelpi notes that his ruling doesn't override the United Supreme Court's Insular Cases."

Rather than citing the decision itself, or in addition to that, it would probably be useful to cite something like pages 821-824 in Adriel I. Cepeda Derieu (2010). "A MOST INSULAR MINORITY: RECONSIDERING JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO UNEQUAL TREATMENT IN LIGHT OF PUERTO RICO’S POLITICAL PROCESS FAILURE". Columbia Law Review 110: 797-839. http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/110/3/Cepeda-Derieux.pdf. . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This District Court decision, while significant, is not entirely consistent with the weight of other authority. The article should contain a presentation of all the different views on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The article should contain a presentation of all the different views on this issue. The 2008 United States District Court decision, establishing that the Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, (except for those provisions that relate to its federal character) and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution has a significant weight on the issue. In addition, the 1942 express extension of the Privileges and Immunities Clause establishing that the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States by the U.S. Congress also has a significant weight on the issue. Nevertheless, the 1966 express extension of the Article III of the U.S. Constitution to the District of Puerto Rico Court by the U.S. Congress transforming the Article IV territorial court created on the year 1900 on a Constitutional Article III United States District Court on the year 1966, the express extension of the Eleventh Amendment and the Dormant Commerce Clause by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the express extention of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, the due process clause and the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme court has a significant weight on this issue too.

An additional point: The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of 1952., which preamble in part reads: “We, the people of Puerto Rico, in order to organise ourselves politically on a fully democratic basis, ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the commonwealth which, in the exercise of our natural rights, we now create within our union with the United States of America. In so doing, we declare: ... We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights and privileges; our loyalty to the principles of the Federal Constitution; ...

The Constitution was created "within our union" with the U.S.; with U.S. Citizenship and the enjoyment of its rights and privileges; and with loyalty to the Federal Constitution. This Constitution, which is a federal law, contains a ratification of the application of the United States Constitution to Puerto Rico and its citizens.

--Seablade (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE I have moved discussion information from two other articles (Talk:Unincorporated_territories_of_the_United_States and Talk:Territories_of_the_United_States) to this page, as it had been requested to editors at those pages in order to keep the discussion at one place only. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Consensus

On the way to finally reach a consensus I support Wtmitchell proposal of in addition to the United States District Court case, also cite something like pages 821-824 in Adriel I. Cepeda Derieu (2010). "A MOST INSULAR MINORITY: RECONSIDERING JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO UNEQUAL TREATMENT IN LIGHT OF PUERTO RICO’S POLITICAL PROCESS FAILURE". Columbia Law Review 110: 797-839. http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/110/3/Cepeda-Derieux.pdf. . ! One clarification my proposal aforementioned at the beginning of this section already included the statement "without overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories - only the Supreme Court can),..." --Seablade (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the proposal taking shape would be less POV, but I would still hold this one point: Isn't the amount of space devoted to the political status issue in the Puerto Rico article too much as it stands already? This article spends a disproportional amount of space to the political status issue as compared to the other sections of the article, as well as compared to the other subsections of the Political Status section within that article. It is my view that any additional info not should be added at this location (that is under subsection "Within the United States"), and also that the whole 20-some paragraphs in that section there should be summarized into no more than 4 (like the others) paragraphs, maybe 5.

As there is already an article dedicated to the status issue (namely, Political status of Puerto Rico, PSPR), and as the article that is the subject of this discussion (i.e., Puerto Rico) already has a Main Article hatnote pointing to the PSPR article, it seems common sense to me to add any additional information related to the PSPR issue not into this article but into the PSPR article. I also bring this up because in this case the weight of this district court opinion is not comparable to the weight of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Based on this approach, I have put the following together for adding to the PSPR article (as 2.4 under Status questions), written in such a way that all views are covered:

• In a 2008 case, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States, and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. The District Courts position, however, is not without critics, and Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux argues the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, it is questionable that the alleged “incorporation” would actually lead to statehood, and because it undercuts a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination.

With that text plus the citations provided, the reader gets an overview of the District Court's position, while giving other different views a chance to be exposed as well. IMO, it is not necessary to redundantly add the information about the PR District Court other articles, such as Territories of the United States and Unincorporated territories of the United States. Mere additions under their respective "See also" sections do suffice. (i.e., See also...Political status of Puerto Rico).

For completeness sake, I present below what I see as a weighted summary of the existing subsection named "Within the United States". If there are any parts in such subsection not found in the PSPR article, they would be moved over (again, I have written it so only the significant points are covered).

"Within the United States"
Puerto Rico is an "unincorporated territory" of the United States which according to the U.S. Supreme Court's Insular Cases is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States."

Constitutionally, Puerto Rico is subject to the Congress' plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. federal law applies to Puerto Rico, even though Puerto Rico is not a state of the American Union and their residents have no voting representation in the U.S. Congress. Like the States of the American Union, Puerto Rico lacks "the full sovereignty of an independent nation," for example, the power to manage its "external relations with other nations," which was retained by the Federal Government. The Supreme Court has indicated that once the Constitution has been extended to an area (by Congress or the Courts), its coverage is irrevocable. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say "what the law is.".

Puerto Ricans "were collectively made U.S. citizens" in 1917 as a result of the Jones-Shafroth Act., yet they cannot vote for the U.S. president. Since Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory (see above) and not a U.S. state, the United States Constitution does not fully enfranchise US citizens residing in Puerto Rico.(See also: "Voting rights in Puerto Rico"). Despite their American citizenship, however, only the "fundamental rights" under the federal constitution apply to Puerto Ricans. Various other U.S Supreme Court decisions have been held opinions on which rights apply in Puerto Rico and which ones do not. Puerto Ricans have a long history of service in the U.S. armed forces and, since 1917, they have been included in the U.S. compulsory draft whenever it has been in effect.

Though the Commonwealth government has its own tax laws, Puerto Ricans are also required to pay most U.S. federal taxes, with the major exception being the federal personal income tax. In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury. Residents of Puerto Rico pay into Social Security, and are thus eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. However, they are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the island actually receives a small fraction of the Medicaid funding it would receive if it were a U.S. state. Also, Medicare providers receive less-than-full state-like reimbursements for services rendered to beneficiaries in Puerto Rico, even though the latter paid fully into the system.

In 1992, President George H. W. Bush issued a memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This memorandum directs all federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a state, insofar as doing so would not disrupt federal programs or operations. Federal executive branch agencies have significant presence in Puerto Rico, just as in any state, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security Administration, Social Security Administration, and others. While Puerto Rico has its own Commonwealth judicial system similar to that of a U.S. state, there is also a federal district court in Puerto Rico, and Puerto Ricans judges have served in that Court and in other federal courts on the mainland regardless of their residency status at the time of their appointment. Puerto Ricans are also regularly appointed to high-level federal positions, including serving as United States Ambassadors.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Trying to use the same neutral wording used on the journal provided by Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) as secondary reference and avoid any kind of Original Researched or Point of view, this is my consensus proposal.

Proposal must be Strict to the secondary reliable source reference wording. Avoiding any kind of minimal perception of OR or POV.

Proposal:

• In a 2008 case, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States, and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. The Puerto Rico District Court concluded with a cautious observation:

Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories—only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one. Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees.

The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. Importantly, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico., While Rullan’s significance is still unclear, the opinion’s approach and treatment of existing law is questionable and Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to the result that the Rullan court postulates. While much has been said about Congress’s plenary power over unincorporated U.S. territories, it is unclear whether Congress would have any less power to act within an incorporated territory such as those en route to statehood, than an unincorporated territory., and because it undercuts a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination.

About the other updates that you are proposing now, I feel some kind of abusive or rudeness behavior, trying to eliminate more than three years of a delicate consensus approach by a lot of well sourced information provided by a lot of Wikipedia’s editors on just one day and by one Wikipedia editor. Let stay the rest of the article just as is with the current consensus established before initiated this talk page section discussion!

Wtmitchell I will really appreciate your assistant to reach a final consensus here, I think that we are near to reach a final consensus for your assistant providing a secondary reliable source!

Thank you, --Seablade (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to say about this. Apart from minor points of formatting, the one thing which caught my eye was the credit for this ref by name to to its author, Adriel I. Cepeda Derieu. That brings to mind the question, "Who??". I'm not sure how much weight and prominence this deserves but this inline crediting seems, to me anyhow, to diminish that unduly. I'd be more comfortable with something like "it has been opined that ..." or "an article in the Columbia Law Review said ...", with a link to the article credited to the author in the footnoted cite. Incidentally, see [1]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wtmitchell recommendation!

Well, about the undue weight claim, The United States District Court decision is considered significant by Newyorkbrad and noteworthy for several reasons by the article in the Columbia Law Review. The Columbia Law Review ranks third for submissions and citations within the legal academic community, after the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal. --Seablade (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to undo or delete the statement performed by Wtmitchell a Senior Wikipedia Administrator, that is his recommendation to an agreement! This is abusive and rudeness behavior! --Seablade (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My error! I apologize for it; I used your initial proposal to create the second proposal! Must be an error of copy and paste your proposal on MS Word to generate the second proposal! However, delete a great part of the discussion was not the solution! --Seablade (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well to reiterate my proposal is used the Columbia Law Review article wording discussing the United States District Court decision and the presentation of the different views on this issue mentioned on the Columbia Law School journal.

I took the Mercy11 proposal and add the cautious observation wording of the Columbia Law Review aforementioned article used on page 824, add the wording of the article about to the proposal and of the three questionable issues I edited the second questionable issue to the wording used on the article. Also I add the following wording of the article: The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. Importantly, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico., While Rullan’s significance is still unclear, the opinion’s approach and treatment of existing law is questionable and the Columbia Law Review article argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons that is also on page 824:

And edit the second questionable item of the opinion approach and treatment of existing law to the same wording used by the Columbia Law Review article. The first questionable item and the third questionable item was keep just as is was presented on the Mercy11 proposal! --Seablade (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the final proposal is this one:

• In a 2008 case, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. The Puerto Rico District Court concluded with a cautious observation:

Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories—only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one. Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees.

An article in the Columbia Law Review said the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. Importantly, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico., As per the Columbia Law Review article, while Rullan’s significance is still unclear, the opinion’s approach and treatment of existing law is questionable and argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to the result that the Rullan court postulates. While much has been said about Congress’s plenary power over unincorporated U.S. territories, it is unclear whether Congress would have any less power to act within an incorporated territory such as those en route to statehood, than an unincorporated territory., and because it undercuts a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination.

Well, I will wait until November 30, 2011 to see if other Wikipedia's user has interest to improve this proposal! To ensure the most neutral possible wording, I used the same wording of pages 824 to 826 of the Columbia Law Review article on the proposal. --Seablade (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• This discussion sort of reminds me of what goes on with religions in this world. Everyone claims to be right and accuses everyone else of being wrong. Since there is a lot of legal mumble jumble involved, I have asked some one with legal knowledge, a Harvard graduate to look into it and to offer his opinion.Tony the Marine (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is what we are saying so far. Please object if I misunderstood. I have listed the various issues by number to make it easier to address:
1. It is agreed for the Puerto Rico article, section "Within the United States", to read as follows:

"Puerto Rico is an "unincorporated territory" of the United States which according to the U.S. Supreme Court's Insular Cases is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States."

Constitutionally, Puerto Rico is subject to the Congress' plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. federal law applies to Puerto Rico, even though Puerto Rico is not a state of the American Union and their residents have no voting representation in the U.S. Congress. Like the States of the American Union, Puerto Rico lacks "the full sovereignty of an independent nation," for example, the power to manage its "external relations with other nations," which was retained by the Federal Government. The Supreme Court has indicated that once the Constitution has been extended to an area (by Congress or the Courts), its coverage is irrevocable. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say "what the law is.".

Puerto Ricans "were collectively made U.S. citizens" in 1917 as a result of the Jones-Shafroth Act., yet they cannot vote for the U.S. president. Since Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory (see above) and not a U.S. state, the United States Constitution does not fully enfranchise US citizens residing in Puerto Rico.(See also: "Voting rights in Puerto Rico"). Despite their American citizenship, however, only the "fundamental rights" under the federal constitution apply to Puerto Ricans. Various other U.S Supreme Court decisions have been held opinions on which rights apply in Puerto Rico and which ones do not. Puerto Ricans have a long history of service in the U.S. armed forces and, since 1917, they have been included in the U.S. compulsory draft whenever it has been in effect.

Though the Commonwealth government has its own tax laws, Puerto Ricans are also required to pay most U.S. federal taxes, with the major exception being the federal personal income tax. In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury. Residents of Puerto Rico pay into Social Security, and are thus eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. However, they are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the island actually receives a small fraction of the Medicaid funding it would receive if it were a U.S. state. Also, Medicare providers receive less-than-full state-like reimbursements for services rendered to beneficiaries in Puerto Rico, even though the latter paid fully into the system.

In 1992, President George H. W. Bush issued a memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This memorandum directs all federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a state, insofar as doing so would not disrupt federal programs or operations. Federal executive branch agencies have significant presence in Puerto Rico, just as in any state, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security Administration, Social Security Administration, and others. While Puerto Rico has its own Commonwealth judicial system similar to that of a U.S. state, there is also a federal district court in Puerto Rico, and Puerto Ricans judges have served in that Court and in other federal courts on the mainland regardless of their residency status at the time of their appointment. Puerto Ricans are also regularly appointed to high-level federal positions, including serving as United States Ambassadors."

2. It is agreed that there will be a link to the Political status of Puerto Rico article under the See also sections of the Territories of the United States and Unincorporated territories of the United States articles. This link will take the place of the redundancy inherent in also adding the 2008 DPR case in those articles.

3. In response to Seablade's comment that

"About the other updates that you are proposing now, I feel some kind of abusive or rudeness behavior, trying to eliminate more than three years of a delicate consensus approach by a lot of well sourced information provided by a lot of Wikipedia’s editors on just one day and by one Wikipedia editor."

I provide this clarification:

(Note: The following mostly repeats a part of my recent message to Seablade left at his Talk Page HERE).

Let me explain that no material is being eliminated as I said in my comment HERE (in particular, where I stated "For completeness sake, I present below what I see as a weighted summary of the existing subsection named "Within the United States". If there are any parts in such subsection not found in the PSPR article, they would be moved over [to the Political Status of Puerto Rico article, as NEW section 2.4 under section 2, "Status questions"] ). Maybe I did not make that entirely clear. To clarify further, the fundamental reason for the content move from the PR article to the PSPR article is that the PR article is falsely implying that the information under the "Within the United States" section is a summary of stuff found at the PSPR article). So my goal was already (as it seems it is Seabalde's) that nothing contributed by other editors would be eliminated. Not to be redundant but, as I said, what I am proposing is to summarize the section "Within the United States" (because it is overly long, in fact about 4-5 times longer than other sections) and to leave a hatnote (it has been there already) for the reader to click on. That way, readers who want further information and detail can get it thru the hatnote if the full text that was there is desired. IOW, nothing is missed. Yes, I know the information has been contributed by various editors, and, yes, I also know some of the information may have been there for years. But I also know that editors oftentimes contribute material yet fail to place it where it clearly best belonged or, equally inneffective, fail to "ease" it properly into the existing surrounding material resulting in a hodge-podge of sentences that are not cohesive. A better summary of teh section in question in the Puerto Rico and choice wording in the PSPR article augmented by the move of the non-summary information from the PR article to the PSPR article appears to be the best approach to enhance the quality of both articles.

4. It is agreed that the 2008 DPR case will be covered at the Political status of Puerto Rico.

With those 4 issues settled, it then appears that this leaves only the 2008 DPR opinion to be ironed out:

5. On the wording of the 2008 DPR case within the Political status of Puerto Rico article.

The 2008 case can be discussed in a NEW section 2.4 under Status questions. There are two proposals:

Here is the version I am Proposing (MERCY11'S VERSION)

2.4 Recent Developments
2.4.1 U.S District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

"In a 2008 case, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States, and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. The District Courts position, however, is not without critics, and Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux argues the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, it is questionable that the alleged “incorporation” would actually lead to statehood, and because it undercuts a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination."

Here is the version SEABLADE is Proposing (SEABLADE'S VERSION):

2.4 Recent Developments
2.4.1 U.S District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
"In a 2008 case, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. The Puerto Rico District Court concluded with a cautious observation:

Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories—only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one. Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees.

An article in the Columbia Law Review said the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. Importantly, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico., As per the Columbia Law Review article, while Rullan’s significance is still unclear, the opinion’s approach and treatment of existing law is questionable and argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to the result that the Rullan court postulates. While much has been said about Congress’s plenary power over unincorporated U.S. territories, it is unclear whether Congress would have any less power to act within an incorporated territory such as those en route to statehood, than an unincorporated territory., and because it undercuts a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination."

As Seablade's major concern appears to be what he calls the "second questionable issue" as it refers to the three objections in Bedraux's analysis of the DPR 2008 decision, I have reworded my proposal to accommodate that concern as well as various other miscellaneous concerns presented above. This bring us to this new version:

NEW PROPOSED VERSION :

2.4 Recent Developments (NEW VERSION)
2.4.1 U.S District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

"In a 2008 case, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. An article in the Columbia Law Review argues that the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. On one hand, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico. But on the other hand it argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: (1) the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, (2) there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to the result that the Rullan court postulates [namely, statehood], and (3) it is unclear whether Congress would have any less power to act within an incorporated territory such as those en route to statehood, than an unincorporated territory, for it would undercut a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination."

Note that the above:

1. Accounts for Seablade's concerns on what he calls "the second questionable issue"
2. Incorporates User:Wtmitchell's note that we forego of the "Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux" inline reference and replace it with one reading "Columbia Law Review article" instead.
3. Paraphases, rather than simply repeats verbatim, what the article states, this avoiding both burdening the reader with legalese and avoiding potential copyright infrignment, and yet accomplishes the informational goal at hand.
4. As for the paragrapgh that starts with "Let it be clear", I excluded it for I find it entirely unneccesary. It is simply stating the obvious, so why even mention it?
5. Presents all the different views on this issue, an observation by User: Newyorkbrad and others.
6. Presents, in addition to the DPR opinion, the analysis at the article in the Columbia Law Review

If I overlooked anything, please say so.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• What I appreciate about this discussion, is that it is being conducted by people who demonstrate a great deal of concern for the issues involved - both the subtleties and the sweep of the issue. I believe this is appropriate (though admittedly tiring) because, in legal matters, a great deal often hinges on a comma, or the inclusion/exclusion of the word "not," or other such maddening technicalities. Ergo Shakespeare's famous dictum about lawyers.

Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan does provide federal precedent, and a framework for discussion and debate. However the Rullan ruling is not ultimately dispositive of a U.S. constitutional question or territorial status issue, since the U.S. Supreme Court is the court of ultimate (and binding) jurisdiction in both of these areas.

The language of the Rullan ruling did not grant full constitutional privileges to Puerto Ricans living on the island itself (as opposed to those living on the mainland). The Rullan court stated that "Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees."

However, as stated earlier, Puerto Rico is subject to the U.S. Congress' plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution.

The Rullan ruling occurred in 2008. Three years later (in 2011), insular Puerto Ricans have neither U.S. Congresspersons nor U.S. Senators, and they cannot vote for a U.S. president. Therefore insular Puerto Ricans are not fully-enfranchised U.S. citizens, and they have not been extended "enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the U.S. Constitution."

It is thus clear that (in the exercise of its plenary powers) the U.S. Congress has chosen to ignore the Rullan ruling.

The operative word in this discussion (and I understand the frustration on both sides) is the usage of the word "must" in the Rullan ruling. As forceful as that word sounds, it was mis-used by the Rullan court, because the U.S. Congress clearly ignored it.

Again...a lower federal court is not the court of ultimate jurisdiction for the issues addressed by Rullan. The U.S. Congress ignored it. Puerto Ricans (on the island) are not fully-enfranchised, and therefore do not have "enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the U.S. Constitution."

I hope this helps your process of consensus. I provided it in that spirit.Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to say thank you to all that are being involved on this discussion on the process of consensus! Nelsondenis248 I understand your point! I invite you to analyze the following U.S. Supreme Court Statements and jurisprudence in relation to territories incorporation declarations:

Florida Territory

In Dorr v. USA (195 U.S. 138, 141-142 (1904)) Justice Marshall is quoted more extensively as follows:

The 6th article of the treaty of cession contains the following provision:

The inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. [8 Stat. at L. 256.] [195 U.S. 138, 142] 'This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government till Florida shall become a state. In the meantime Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."

In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 256 (1901), Justice Brown says:

The same construction was adhered to in the treaty with Spain for the purchase of Florida (8 Stat. at L. 252) the 6th article of which provided that the inhabitants should 'be incorporated into the Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution ;

As you can see the inhabitants of Florida were incorporated to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States with the principles of the Federal Constitution. However the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Florida Territory do not participate in political power; they do not share in the government till Florida shall become a State. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that in the meantime Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."

The definition of Unincorporated and Incorporated are initiated by the Supreme Court on an statement that the Treaty of Paris (1898) Article IX has a different wording that other treaties in relation to territories with other nations. For example the Spain Treaty with the U.S. Congress in reference to the Florida Territory has a different wording that the Spain Treaty with the U.S. Congress in reference to the Puerto Rico territory.

Eg. Treaty with Spain - Florida Territory The same construction was adhered to in the treaty with Spain for the purchase of Florida (8 Stat. at L. 252) the 6th article of which provided that the inhabitants should 'be incorporated into the Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution ;}}

Eg. Treaty with Spain - Puerto Rico Territory Article IX. Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside.

The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress. Reference:*Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain

The difference between the other treaties and the Treaty of Paris (1898) is the wording about the inhabitants of the territory: "inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determine by the Congress" vs. "the inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States."

As you can see there is a noticable different between incorporation into the union that refer to the inhabitants and admitted into the union as a State that refer to the land.

Other example, the U.S. Supreme Court Rassmusen opinion makes a distinction between the decision on the Philipines and that on Alaska:

“The treaty concerning Alaska, instead of exhibiting, as did the treaty respecting the Philippine Islands, the determination to reserve the question of the status of the acquired territory for ulterior action by Congress, manifested a contrary intention....”

Contrary to the Philippines (and Puerto Rico), in Alaska the intention was to incorporate it by stating: The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion.' [15 Stat. at L. 542.] This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary."

In the case of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Congress ulterior action arrived on 1947 through the express extension of the paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States to Puerto Rico.

The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States.

Ending the clarification point, I will be evaluating the third consensus proposal, and I invite any other Wikipedia's user that would like to participate on this discussion to do it and help us on the process of consensus! --Seablade (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• The second questionable issue on the Columbia Law Review read as follows:

The second questionable issue on the Columbia Law Review
Columbia Law Review Article

"Second, there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to the result that the Rullan court postulates. While much has been said about Congress’s plenary power over unincorporated U.S. territories, it is unclear whether Congress would have any less power to act within an incorporated territory such as those en route to statehood.169 Here, the constitutional provision at issue matters a great deal.170 The Spending Clause anchors Congress’s power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”171 As such, it is not clear whether the applicability of the Spending Clause’s recognized limitations to Puerto Rico hinged on its status as an incorporated or unincorporated territory or, rather, merely its status as a territory. “Right to vote” challenges brought by U.S. citizen Puerto Rico residents seeking participation in presidential elections are illustrative.172 In these instances, the relevant language contained in the Constitution’s Article II, providing “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors” to select the President,173 has been read to deny citizens residing in the territories—whether or not they are incorporated—a constitutional right to vote in presidential elections.174"

The Columbia Law Review article said that the second questionable issue is that there is no different between an incorporated or unincorporated territory or, rather, merely its status as a territory. That the U.S. Congress would have exactly the same power over the territory and the last name of the territory to incorporated or unincorporated does not change anything in relation to the power of Congress over Puerto Rico. The second questionable issue begin this way: Second, there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to the result that the Rullan court postulates.

What the Rullan court postulate?

Rullan court postulate it is found, on the page 29 of the Court decision, and the postulate declared that a heightened level of scrutiny is available to protect the Commonwealth and its citizens from discriminatory federal legislation. through the incorporation! The Columbia Law Review said that this postulate is questionable! --Seablade (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The first questionable issue on the Columbia Law Review
Columbia Law Review Article

The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. Importantly, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico. Rullan is also notable as the first federal court decision to identify a shift in Puerto Rico’s territorial status from unincorporated to incorporated territory.164 While Rullan’s significance is still unclear,165 the opinion’s approach and treatment of existing law is questionable. This Note now examines three reasons why the Rullan court’s reasoning is misguided. First, the approach taken by the District Court in Rullan—i.e., surveying Congress’s legislative record towards Puerto Rico to determine whether the territory has been “incorporated” into the United States—appears foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Balzac v. Porto Rico.166 Chief Justice Taft’s Balzac opinion rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument employed by the Rullan court.167 The Rullan opinion reasons around this problem, noting that the Supreme Court’s recent treatment of the Insular Cases in Boumediene v. Bush highlighted federal courts’ responsibility to delineate the Constitution’s applicability outside United States borders.168 While this assertion is true, absent further Supreme Court clarification, it does not overcome the presumption against implicit incorporation that Balzac firmly set in place.

The second questionable issue on the Columbia Law Review
Columbia Law Review Article

"Second, there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to the result that the Rullan court postulates. While much has been said about Congress’s plenary power over unincorporated U.S. territories, it is unclear whether Congress would have any less power to act within an incorporated territory such as those en route to statehood.169 Here, the constitutional provision at issue matters a great deal.170 The Spending Clause anchors Congress’s power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”171 As such, it is not clear whether the applicability of the Spending Clause’s recognized limitations to Puerto Rico hinged on its status as an incorporated or unincorporated territory or, rather, merely its status as a territory. “Right to vote” challenges brought by U.S. citizen Puerto Rico residents seeking participation in presidential elections are illustrative.172 In these instances, the relevant language contained in the Constitution’s Article II, providing “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors” to select the President,173 has been read to deny citizens residing in the territories—whether or not they are incorporated—a constitutional right to vote in presidential elections.174"

The third questionable issue on the Columbia Law Review
Columbia Law Review Article

Finally, for all the criticism the Insular Cases have engendered,175 a general consensus exists—both in Puerto Rico and in the mainland United States—that a resolution to the incorporation question, if it ever comes, must be arrived at democratically.176 Consider, for example, the fractious debate over Puerto Rico’s political “status” that still shapes island politics fifty-six years after the creation of the current Commonwealth arrangement.177 Since most interested actors share the belief that a solution to the status “problem,” if it ever comes, should be arrived at democratically, the Rullan court’s holding that Puerto Rico is henceforth an incorporated territory of the United States undercuts a consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination.178 Moreover, as Part I.B.2 explained, the effects of future judicial pronouncements criticizing or even overruling the Insular Cases on Congress’s ability to legislate disparately towards Puerto Rico are limited.179 Even if the Supreme Court were to hold that Puerto Rico has been incorporated into the United States—as the Rullan court did—Congress would likely retain its discretion to treat Puerto Rico differentially pursuant to its Territory Clause powers.180 These countervailing concerns seemingly work to create an impasse: Courts may defer to congressional action, thus taking themselves out of the equation, or they may play a more active role at the risk of shortcircuiting a potential political resolution to Puerto Rico’s status question.

I included the Columbia Law Review article; three questionable issues on the Talk page to simplify to other users contribute to the process of consensus! --Seablade (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note: As there was no objection to the first 4 of the 6 points listed above, the issues in question appear resolved, with only the wording of the 2008 DPR case left to fine tune. Subsequently, I have performed the 4 edits indicated earlier into their pertinents articles, namely section "Within the United States" of the Puerto Rico article (1 edit); the "See also" sections of the Territories of the United States and Unincorporated territories of the United States articles (2 edits); the move of the entire contents of section "Within the United States" in the Puerto Rico article to the Political status of Puerto Rico article (1 edit). Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• Minor updates proposal:

Within the United States
Within the United States minor updates

Constitutionally, Puerto Rico is subject to the Congress' plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. federal law applies to Puerto Rico, even though Puerto Rico is not a state of the American Union and their residents have no voting representation in the U.S. Congress. Like the States of the American Union, Puerto Rico lacks "the full sovereignty of an independent nation," for example, the power to manage its "external relations with other nations," which was retained by the Federal Government.

Puerto Ricans "were collectively made U.S. citizens" in 1917 as a result of the Jones-Shafroth Act, yet they cannot vote for the U.S. president or have an effective opportunity to participate in the U.S. Congress.

Since Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory (see above) and not a U.S. state, the United States Constitution does not fully enfranchise US citizens residing in Puerto Rico.(See also: "Voting rights in Puerto Rico"). Despite their American citizenship, however, only the "fundamental rights" under the federal constitution apply to Puerto Ricans. Various other U.S. Courts decisions have been held opinions on which constitutional sections applies in Puerto Rico and which ones do not. In addition, the U.S. Congress had extended the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the constitution to Puerto Rico and the article III of the constitution to the district court. The Supreme Court has indicated that once the Constitution has been extended to an area (by Congress or the Courts), its coverage is irrevocable. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say "what the law is.". Puerto Ricans have a long history of service in the U.S. armed forces and, since 1917, they have been included in the U.S. compulsory draft whenever it has been in effect.

The Commonwealth government is classified as an independent taxation authority by a federal law and has its own tax laws, Puerto Ricans are also required to pay most U.S. federal taxes, with the major exception being the federal personal income tax. In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury. Residents of Puerto Rico pay into Social Security, and are thus eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. However, they are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the island actually receives a small fraction of the Medicaid funding it would receive if it were a U.S. state. Also, Medicare providers receive less-than-full state-like reimbursements for services rendered to beneficiaries in Puerto Rico, even though the latter paid fully into the system.

In 1992, President George H. W. Bush issued a memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This memorandum directs all federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a state, insofar as doing so would not disrupt federal programs or operations. Federal executive branch agencies have significant presence in Puerto Rico, just as in any state, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security Administration, Social Security Administration, and others. While Puerto Rico has its own Commonwealth judicial system similar to that of a U.S. state, there is also a federal district court in Puerto Rico, and Puerto Ricans judges have served in that Court and in other federal courts on the mainland regardless of their residency status at the time of their appointment. Puerto Ricans are also regularly appointed to high-level federal positions, including serving as United States Ambassadors, or Generals and Admirals in the U.S. military.

--Seablade (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• New Version Proposal:

2.4 Recent Developments (NEW VERSION)
2.4.1 U.S District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

"In a 2008 case, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan, the District Court of Puerto Rico held (without overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories) that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. An article in the Columbia Law Review argues that the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. On one hand, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico. But on the other hand it argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: (1) the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, (2) there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to the result that the Rullan court postulates, relied on the judicially created territorial incorporation doctrine to limit the ability of Puerto Rican residents to redress harms caused by unequal congressional treatment, heightened the level of judicial scrutiny available to protect the Commonwealth and its citizens from discriminatory federal legislation; declaring that Congress today, must afford Puerto Rico and the citizens residing therein to all the constitutional guarantees. In doing so, courts have overlooked the central role Puerto Rican disenfranchisement plays in perpetuating the arrangement that makes unequal treatment possible and (3) for it would undercut a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination."

I also relied on the conclusion of the Columbia Law Review article to update the second questionable issue.

Columbia Law Review Article Conclusion
Columbia Law Review

CONCLUSION

This Note has argued that courts have misguidedly relied on the judicially created territorial incorporation doctrine to limit the ability of Puerto Rican residents to redress harms caused by unequal congressional treatment. In doing so, courts have overlooked the central role Puerto Rican disenfranchisement plays in perpetuating the arrangement that makes unequal treatment possible. In light of the political insularity of U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico, this Note contends greater judicial scrutiny of federal legislation discriminating against Puerto Rico is both appropriate and normatively desirable.

--Seablade (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is a perfect case where paraphrasing, rather than citing verbatim, is preferable, in order not to engage the average reader into mundane legalese that runs the risk of confusing rather than imparting information.

In simple terms, what the Rullan court postulated was that the change of Puerto Rico from an unincorporated territory to an incorporated territory would result in Congress extending to Puerto Rico all the constitutional rights enjoyed by the other states. (page 4 of the Rullan Court case text)

As such we could modify the text to read as follows:

2.4 Recent Developments
2.4.1 U.S District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

"In a 2008 case, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. An article in the Columbia Law Review argues that the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. On one hand, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico. On the other hand, it argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: (1) the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, (2) there are strong reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead in Congress extending to Puerto Rico all the constitutional rights enjoyed by the other states, and (3) it is unclear whether Congress would have any less power to act within an incorporated territory such as those en route to statehood, than an unincorporated territory, for it would undercut a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination."

I appreciate Seablade staying close to the text of the Court opinion and the Law Review article in order not to err. However, I do perceive his last version above as overly wordy and convoluted (thanks to both the court's and Law Review's articles wording) and I am afraid it would be too taxing for the average reader to digest the three points in the Law Review article if presented as he is proposing it above. As such, I have tried to use words, phrases and syntax that would be easier for the average reader to understand.

I still hold that the DPR opinion does not carry the sort of weight that would merit its addition. As Seablade should know, the burden of proof that any information is relevant rests on the adding editor (in this case, Seablade). With that said, I remind, I have conceded from my inital position that the information had no weight at all and that it should not be added, to where --as it can be appreciated from my proposal above-- I am seeking to achieve a compromise where to the addition of the DPR information is OK but with certain conditions related to ease of reading. At this point, I propose the minor remaining differences be left in the "agree to disagree" pot and seek to compromise on this last version.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• Minor updates to the proposal, trying that wording be more close to the case and the Columbia Law Review; avoiding any appearance of POV.

2.4 Recent Developments
2.4.1 U.S District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

"In a 2008 case, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. An article in the Columbia Law Review argues that the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. On one hand, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico. On the other hand, it argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: (1) the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, (2) there are reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to extending to Puerto Rico and to the United States citizens residing therein, all the constitutional guarantees, enjoyed by the other states and their residents, to protect the territory from discriminatory federal legislation; in other terms, it is unclear whether Congress would have any less power to act within an incorporated territory such as those en route to statehood, than an unincorporated territory, and (3) it would undercut a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination."

--Seablade (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, I find your proposal acceptable but in the following form, which I deem necessary to keep long drawn out sentences out:

2.4 Recent Developments
2.4.1 U.S District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

"In a 2008 case, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan, the District Court of Puerto Rico held that Puerto Rico had, over time, been incorporated into the United States and that it had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory. An article in the Columbia Law Review argues that the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Rullan is noteworthy for several reasons. On the one hand, it illustrates a particular court’s move to redress unequal congressional treatment towards Puerto Rico. On the other hand, it argues that the Court's reasoning is misguided for three reasons: (1) the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rejected the “implicit incorporation” argument, (2) there are reasons to question whether Puerto Rico’s “incorporation” would lead to Congress having any less power to act within an incorporated territory, such as those en route to statehood, than an unincorporated territory, (3) a solution to the status problem should be arrived at democratically for otherwise it would undercut a democratic consensus of opinion calling for the island’s self-determination. "

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• If the case is so noteworthy, where are the secondary sources? Lets not the get too excited about the Columbia Law article written by a recent graduate. We are not dealing with an article written by Juan R. Torruella. Wikipedia is clear about the use of wp:primary sources: "Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources." I would like to see more secondary sources that prove that a district case (not the First Circuit) is noteworthy and relevant to be included here.

• It appears there are 2 votes against of adding the DPR/Columbia article to the article, and 1 vote in favor, as follows:

AGAINST:

• Mercy11
• Jmundo

FOR:

• Seablade

NO VOTES:

• Wtmitchell
• Nelsondenis248
• Newyorkbrad
• Tony the Marine

It appears the result is "NO ADD - Leave DPR opinion & Columbia Law Review article comments OUT."

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Citation needed

There appears to be citation being needed on this article. WBJB003 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think the article needs a citation, you will need to add a citation needed tag at the proper place. See WP:Citation needed. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Plagiarism?

It appears that several sections of this article are copy and pasted from gubernatorial sources. My beef with this is that the article is starting to sound as an official government record. If the material can't be sourced to reliable sources besides official reports it should be removed or at least paraphrase. --Jmundo (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

From the Recent developments section: If efforts on the Island do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of acceptable status options that the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. This legislation should commit the United States to honor the choice of Puerto Rico (provided it is one of the status options specified in the legislation) and should specify the means by which such a choice would be made. The Task Force recommends that, by the end of 2012, the Administration develop, draft, and work with Congress to enact the proposed legislation.(Copy and pasted from page 2 from White House report)

From Law Enforcement section: In December 2009, the government of Puerto Rico enacted a new law (Law 191 of 2009) aimed at strengthening the issuance and usage of birth certificates to combat fraud and protect the identity and credit of all U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico. The new law was based on collaboration with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address the fraudulent use of Puerto Rico-issued birth certificates to unlawfully obtain U.S. passports, Social Security benefits, and other federal services. (Copy and pasted from here and [ttp://www.salud.gov.pr/Programas/RegistroDemografico/Documents/06-28-10%20BC%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20English.pdf here])

I agree with the copy/paste allegation. The first one was added in THIS ocassion and, to give further credence to your point, it can be see from this version HERE that the editor did not even bother to remove the carriage returns from his copy/paste.

The second section edit you stated above (Law Enforcement section) was entered in THIS ocassion.

Also on the edit you recently removed HERE, it was entered on THIS ocassion.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• I edited the content removing most of the copyright violation found at Recent development. And eliminated altogether the section on Law Enforcement. Most of the section was copied and pasted from two sources (see my first post). I also believed that too much weight is given to a specific law. Maybe someone can start an article on Puerto Rican birth certificate. --Jmundo (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Weight Issues in the Lede

User:EdgarMCMLXXXI wants to change the wording of the lede with allegations of no neutrality & has been invited to discuss his concerns on this page. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Climate section, fix graph label

There seems to be an error in the minimum range and average temperatures graph label. Both the average temperatures graphs are labeled maximum, while one does link to a graph image that is labeled minimum. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsec96 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! It is fixed now. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit semi-protected) typo

Part of section 4.4 reads

On October 2011, Governor Luis Fortuño set August 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite. If a second status vote is required, it will take place on the same day as the general election in November 6, 2012, he added.

It should be:

In October 2011, Governor Luis Fortuño set August 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite. If a second status vote is required, it will take place on the same day as the general election on November 6, 2012, he added.

Fixed. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Voting For President

I believe it's important to point out that Puerto Ricans can vote for the US President, just residents of Puerto Rico cannot vote for president. This seems to cause a mix-up among many people. For instance, a Puerto Rican born in Puerto Rico and living there cannot vote for president, but if he moves to one of the 50 states or to DC, he can vote for president because he is an American but he is no longer residing in Puerto Rico. Another way of looking at it: if a white or black American lives in the 50 states or DC he can vote for president, but if that white or black American moves to Puerto Rico to live, then he cannot vote for president because he is a resident of Puerto Rico. I say this because I someimes hear people say that Puerto Ricans cannot vote in presidential elections, when actually Puerto Ricans can; however, Puerto Rico itself cannot vote. That's the difference. Perhaps this should be clearly explained.

The article consistency indicated that small difference except in one ocassion. It's now been corrected. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Actually you got it wrong by using the wording "Puerto Ricans...cannot vote for president." I am going to revert back to the previous, which said "they (residents of PR) cannot vote for president." HkCaGu (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you got it wrong.

The key word here is "residents", which was non-exitent in the text and which I first introduced via my edit HERE (It was already found in the footnote but not visible in the body of the article). This paramount keyword was the reason the reader above stated the concern. So you did NOT "revert back to the previous" at all as you are claiming, for the previous version didn't contain the keyword "residents" - you just found another way to state the same thing I fixed. Had you "reverted back" as you are stating, the diff HERE would be null; but it is not: your "residing" word in that diff, keeps the essence of the "residents" keyword which I had originally introduced.

Just for the record...

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Religions, photo

Sometime back I had added a pic of the muslim temple in Ponce to the Religion section in this article, but it was replaced by the Catholic cathedral in San Juan.

Today I have replaced the pic of the Roman Catholic cathedral back with one of a muslim temple. I think the pic of the muslim temple is better that the catholic cathedral for 3reasons: (1) The text of the article states upfront that Catholicism is the dominant religion, yet it also has a picture of a catholic cathedral. This is redundant. Why prove with a photo something that is already a cited fact? (2) The article states Catholicism is the dominant religion, yet it also has a picture of a Catholic cathedral with a caption that states "many religious beliefs are represented in the island". Clearly, if Catholicism is just one religious belief (dominant as it may be), a pic of a Catholic cathedral does not lend support to the statement that "MANY religious beliefs are represented in the island." Thus, a pic of something OTHER THAN Catholicism is best at supporting that statement. (3)The cathedral is located in San Juan. A pic of a structure of a religious group in an area OTHER THAN San Juan would best portray that, in fact, there are religious beliefs other than Catholicism elsewhere in the ISLAND. With this 3rd one, I am not implying that San Juan is not part of the Island, but rather that a pic from an area outside San Juan - which, due to its sheer size, would most often be expected to be a mecca for various religions anyway - is best at representing that, in fact, many religious beliefs are represented in the ISLAND. Regards. Mercy11 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How about adding it to the gallery at the end of the section and having no particular image next to the text? --Ljvillanueva (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mercy, I have to disagree with your reasons. To me it seems you are nitpicking on the photo for no particular reason. Even if other religious beliefs (Muslims, Jews, etc) are represented the reality is that they are a very small minority when compared to Christians. Why not just have a collage of a few congregation sites (churches, mosques, etc) and eliminate the gallery altogether. To go over your points.

1)If Catholicism is the main religion then a Catholic Church should be prominently displayed.

2?Why not just change the caption.

3)What does it matter where the church is located? San Juan is after all the main population center. it's like talking about Italy and choosing not to display the Colosseum because it's in Rome. Joelito (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider my selection is nitpicking and I presented my reasons above. But likewise if others disagree, I have no problem listening to their opinions!

However, I am not ready to start WWW III (I am being sarcastic, not offensive thru ridicule), so if there is a consensus for another point, I am fine with that. I yield to going back to the way it was or to a 3rd form yet. It really doesn't matter that much to me, but thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts. Regards. Mercy11 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Mercy11 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Joannes Est Nomen Eius, Juan es tu nombre, John is your name

Dantadd here is a published source which states that it is “John is your name”.

Toro, Leonor, Simbolos Nacionales - National Symbols. 1981 “The seal of Puerto Rico, conferred upon the island by the Catholic Kings, Fernando and Isabel, on November 8, 1511 to recognize Puerto Rico as part of the Spanish Empire is described, and the historical, cultural, and religious significance of its components (the lamb, yoke, letters, the Latin phrase for "John Is Your Name," the cross of Jerusalem, the castles, lion, and pennants) are explained and illustrated.”

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED207785&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED207785

I think that will suffice, since WP relies on verifiability, anyhow this is also true. Nevertheless the law of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of March 9 of 1905, nor the updated version of 1976; have made any "official" version of "Juan es TU nombre" or "Juan es SU nombre" it simply states that both are correct, by not enforcing one or the other.

Here are other references for “Juan es tu nombre” in spanish: http://www.prboriken.com/escudo.htm http://www.gabitogrupos.com/PuertoRico/template.php?nm=1257877999 http://members.tripod.com/~Steven_Toro/index-13.html http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Puerto/Rico/artificios/nominales/nacion/Estado/elpepuint/20100819elpepuint_8/Tes http://www.salonhogar.com/est_soc/pr/general/especificaciones.htm http://blog.pucp.edu.pe/item/108535/los-nombres-de-america-puerto-rico Efiiamagus (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree Efiiamagus, but here are my reasons against your statement.

1. Although you present 6 sources in Spanish for the use of "Juan es TU hombre" (John is YOUR name), a quick google search in Spanish resulted in plenty more using the translation into Spanish "Juan es SU nombre." To equal the number of your sources, I also present 6, including Puerto Rico's own government website.

• http://www.indexmundi.com/puerto_rico/
• http://www.caliricans.com/puerto-rico/
• http://www.proyectosalonhogar.com/enciclopedia_ilustrada/Escudo_de_Puerto_Rico.htm
• http://enlaceapuertorico.info/escudo_esp.html
• http://uk.ask.com/beauty/Motto-of-Puerto-Rico

As you know, "su" is 3rd person singular possessive pronoun. Although it is also used for 2nd person singular formal pronoun "usted"; "tu" and "vuestro" (2nd person plural informal and formal possessive pronouns) were used at Columbus' times.

2. A google search of "John is YOUR name" in English brought me no results, but "John is HIS name" brought plenty. Here are at least 4.

• http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Puerto_Rico.aspx
• http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/caribb/puertorico/prsymbols.htm
• http://daytranslations.com/puerto_rican_flag.aspx
• http://www.city-data.com/states/Puerto-Rico.html

3. The shield says "Joannes Est Nomen Ejus;" it doesn't say "Joannes Est Nomen tuus." "Ejus," originally "Eius," is the Latin genitive declination of the third person singular, which means "His/Her/Its," while "tuus" would be that of 2nd person singular. With acknowledgement of WP:Verifiability, not truth (which would imply that we ought to use the "John is YOUR name" claim provided if we only stick to your ONE English source and disregards the many presented by me), WP:Translations and transcriptions permits us to faithfully translate ourselves into English, specially if there are sources that support the translation (see above).

4. Finally, when Columbus said "Joannes Est Nomen Ejus," he was quoting the Bible (Lk 1, 63) when Zachariah writes such words to clarify the name of his son, "John is his name."

5. I also would like to see a source to your claim that "Nevertheless the law of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of March 9 of 1905, nor the updated version of 1976; have made any "official" version of "Juan es TU nombre" or "Juan es SU nombre" it simply states that both are correct, by not enforcing one or the other".--Coquidragon (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was only trying to provide a published peer reviewed source on the issue. You are committing two very common errors that are classic in Wikipedia:

• 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_abstract_available_bias
• 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUTON_bias

In fact I encounter them so much that I have them linked to my page.

What I think (and I do have my opinion) is irrelevant. I already provided a source at least for the claim that it is “John is your name”. Can you produce a published, peer reviewed source on the specific topic?

This is the source: Toro, Leonor. Simbolos Nacionales. National Symbols. Author Toro, Leonor for the Connecticut State Migratory Children's Program, New Haven. ERIC Clearinghouse, 1981. 19 p.

You asked me ”I also would like to see a source to your claim that "Nevertheless the law of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of March 9 of 1905, nor the updated version of 1976”. I already gave you the source. It is the “Marzo 9, 1905 r. 1976, Ley que Regula el Escudo de Armas”. <- That is the SOURCE. Look it up, you will see there is no official translation in English or Spanish of the Latin Motto; since as you see it is a bit futile, to attempt to translate a dead post reconstructed language to a modern one.

I will not engage in a discussion about the use of Latin. And the use of possesive/reflexive/demostrative pronouns; eius is a genitive DEMONSTRATIVE pronoun. Latin was a situational language and the correct tranlastion is in the form of the sentence; which is why it is translated as “your” or “tú”; but that will be my opinion and that is after all, irrelevant.

I take by your name you are Puerto Rican; which I am not. So maybe you have a bias or conflict of interest there. Nevertheless you are not presenting secondary peer reviewed sources, only primary self-published ones. The numbers of entries in a Google search are irrelevant.

If you want to change it to reflect the published source I provided do it. I will not engage in an “edit war” over so trivial a thing. If you don’t like the source I provided or want to change it based on primary self-published online sources, go ahead. I think you should reconsider and look for second degree sources and not just first degree ones.

Take care. Have fun editing. Efiiamagus (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's atart in order:

1. You are accusing of committing fallacy? I did not question your sources, nor did I put my primary self-published online sources above yours. I only provided internet sources because you cited 6 of them in your argument. That was my intention behind the first set of 6 links (including Puerto Rico's own government use of the translation into Spanish). Now, since both set of links were in Spanish, yours and mine, and this is English wikipedia, my second set of links tried to provide some English language sources, though primary self-published. I would agree that the number of entries in google doesn't say anything about truth, but I don't think that they are completely irrelevant, since they are pretty indicative about what people know or believe. Furthermore, although I think I am evaluating your argument and providing my argument against and in no way I'm being biased (that is for others to decided, if I am, I apologize), as you say, I am indeed Puerto Rican, and have read plenty of books in English, and never have I read an English translation of the phrase in the Shield as "John is your name." So, I was pretty surprised you did have one secondary peer reviewed source for such incorrect translation. (I don't question your source, I question the translation itself.) I find myself traveling and don't have my books with me, but I will bring you some secondary peer reviewed sources for the correct translation as soon as I can. For now, let's continue.

2. You asked me to look at the law. Well, I did. Why don't you pay a look to the update of the regulation about the Shield: Law 768 (May 11th, 2009) of the Puerto Rican Senate, which clearly states its intent to update the description of the Shield provided in 1511 to modern Spanish, and do states a Spanish translation: "Juan es su hombre." You say "since as you see it is a bit futile, to attempt to translate a dead post reconstructed language to a modern one." Well, the Puerto Rican government did. Here is a link to the law (in Spanish) [2] that provides an official translation of the Shield into Spanish.

3. You say:

"I will not engage in a discussion about the use of Latin."

"Latin was a situational language and the correct tranlastion is in the form of the sentence; which is why it is translated as “your” or “tú”; but that will be my opinion and that is after all, irrelevant."

I agree. Same as yours, my opinion is also irrelevant. Yet I speak now as somebody knowledgeable in Latin, both Classic Latin from my philosophy studies (I also studied in Salamanca like yourself; I got there my degree in Philosophy) and Church Latin for my being a Jesuit (member of the Catholic Religious Order of Priests). Classic Latin might have been a situational language two thousand years ago under the Roman Empire. Yet, Church Latin was pretty much set in stone in the 13th Century. "Eius" is NOT translated into "Your" or "Tú," although I have no idea how that translation, which I agree is in use today, came about.

4. Points 1, 2 and 3 being informative only, the point I'm trying to make is that the sources provided were an attempt to show you parallel translations of the phrase in the Shield. I did not base the change I made to the article on them. I based them on my arguments 3 and 4. Paraphrasing to reflect your latest contribution, with acknowledgement of WP:Verifiability, not truth (which would imply that we ought to use the "John is YOUR name" claim provided if we stick to your secondary peer reviewed source), again, WP:Translations and transcriptions permits us to faithfully translate ourselves into English. Finally, since the phrase is a quote from the Bible and the Book of Luke was written originally in Greek, which reads "ιωαννην εστιν ονομα αυτου" and means "John is his name", there should be no misunderstanding as to what "Joannes Est Nomen Ejus" really means.

5. Thanks. You have being a gentleman in your response, and I hope in my imperfect writing I have also managed to be one.--Coquidragon (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I had the "Ley que regula el Escudo de armas 1905 r. 1976". That said that both uses were correct; with no official translation for english. But if the 2009 revision says it is "Juan es su nombre", then that is the newest source, and is the one that should be used. As I said I was only pointing to the verifiable sources I had. If others want to challenge them or bring forth more studies to make a consensus. I am not opposed in anyway. Take care. Efiiamagus (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)