Talk:Puerto Rico

English translation for NPP

Several of the top leaders of Puerto Rico's governing party (NPP) and its government, including Gov. Luis Fortuño, the party president, and Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock, the party's chief spokesperson on the U.S. mainland, translate "Partido Nuevo Progresista" as "New Party for Progress", rather than "New Progressive Party". They have a point because in 1967 (year of the nationally bipartisan NPP's foundation by a Republican leader) Spanish, "progresista" referred to being in favor of "progress", while the English word "progressive" in 2012 is almost synonimous to "liberal". This, New Party for Progress is a more accurate translation of "Partido Nuevo Progresista", since the NPP is a party that includes both Republican conservatives, such as Fortuño, as well as Democratic moderates, such as McClintock and Congressman Pedro Pierluisi.

Statehood date

The article should use the word "colony" rather than "territory". Puerto Rico is one of five current United States colonies, along with Guam, The Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and Alaska. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.29.172 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

When will there be official info on Puerto Rico's date of statehood?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe never. It is not a foregone conclusion that Puerto Rico will become a state. Territories don't make themselves states. The United States Congress does. Cresix (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that a process to incorporate Puerto Rico as a State has begun. First, Congress must be convinced that a clear majority of people in Puerto Rico want Statehood in order to act upon the Puerto Rican people's request. Then, they would have a lot to decide before putting their approval into a Bill, which after being signed by the President, is the only guarantee that a scheduled process has begun.

Moreover, the results of the recent referendum could be interpreted by Congress as non-conclusive or statistically-flawed since the so-called "majority" of Statehood supporters represent less than half of all people who voted. The 61.1% result (as reported by the Puerto Rico Elections Commission) does not include those who left the status question blank, effectively leaving the result ambiguous given that they did answer the first question. It was not clear if voting YES in the first question would invalidate the answer to the status question, creating a reason to leave it blank. Furthermore, the local Popular Democratic Party protested the referendum, changing its stance in mid-campaign on how its supporters should have voted. This split its base into people who voted for a "Sovereign Commonwealth" (as defined by the opposing party) and blank answers.

In short, the answer is not clear. Chris ramos pr (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Translation of the English Legal Name

While 'Free and associated state' may be the 'literal translation' of the legal name of Puerto Rico (Estado libre y asociado), why is it necessary to point that out? The translation of 'Estado Libre y Asociado' into English is simply 'Commonwealth', which is already indicated. The literal translation of 'Free and associated state' is wholly unneccessary, as this term is never applied in any way, be it speech, legal texts, contexts, written, etc. Grammarcop1 (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is important. The dichotomy between the meanings of Estado Libre Asociado and Commonwealth have been at the center of controversies for decades. Even Governor Fortuño had to educate the US Congress on the meaning of Estado Libre Asociado at one time. [1] A google search for the string "Associated Free State of Puerto Rico" returns over 3 million hits, clearly not an insignificant number. The literal translation of the term in Spanish is widely used in the literature. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

"is widely used in the literature" - can you provide some references? This is the first time I see this literal translation used. Maybe it has been used once in a while, but it is not the most used translation.--Ljvillanueva (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I also would like to see the reference. Nevertheless, I think it is unconstructive to have just a literal translation of the name without any explanation, as it could lead an uneducated reader to think of Puerto Rico as a Free Association with US, which it clearly is not. Moreover, if the explanation is given, I don't think the lede is the best place to state the complexity of Puerto Rico's status, which is what would be required of any attempt for such explanation. The Official name in English is IMHO enough, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and that is clear when it is taken into consideration that the US Government has never accepted nor use the literal translation of the name in English for Puerto Rico. Also, it will break consistency with other articles on countries that do not have a literal translations of the name in the lede, but only the official name.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent retort by Coquidragon. I still agree that the literal translation is categorically unimportant. Once again, I argue that this literal translation is never used for any purpose other than a few people making the same mistake of thinking it means something. Furthermore, a Google search of 3M hits means nothing other than that there are 3M articles that may make an incorrect reference to the legal name. I also continue to argue that Wikipedia should be more along the lines of an actual fact-based approach; not one that includes unreferenced sources to literature and meaningless Google hits. The literal translation is not the legal or official name of Puerto Rico and can be found no where in any text that regards the organization of its government. Grammarcop1 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that hinting at the PR political status mess via the literal translation in the lede section takes away from the quality of the article and have removed it, also moving the accompanying source to the section in the body of the article where the literal translation of ELA de Puerto Rico was already mentioned. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Edit request on 21 December 2012

The last paragraph of the section titled Recent Developments starts "On 6 Novemeber 2011." Please change this to "On 6 November 2012" because the referendum occured the same day as the presidential election. The correct date is noted on many other of your pages, this is the only one I found to be wrong. Thank you. 174.111.113.32 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I'm assuming it is Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 21:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done— Wolfgang42 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent Developments Section

I think that the following information must be part of the Puerto Rico article, Recent developments section.

It is certainly a recent development.

On December 11th, 2012, the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico has enacted a concurrent resolution to request the President and the Congress of the United States to respond diligently and effectively, and to act on the demand of the people of Puerto Rico, as freely and democratically expressed in the plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, to end, once and for all, its current form of territorial status and to begin the process to admit Puerto Rico to the Union as a State.

Reference:The Senate and the House of Representative of Puerto Rico Concurrent Resolution requesting the end of the territorial status

It is certainly a recent development. The CIA The World Factbook Webpage background info updated on December 4, 2012 related to Puerto Rico illustrated that.

"In plebiscites held in 1967, 1993, and 1998, voters chose not to alter the existing political status with the US, but the results of a 2012 vote left open the possibility of American statehood".

Reference: Puerto Rico CIA The World Factbook Webpage

--Buzity (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we need it in this article. It would be better suited for Politics of Puerto Rico. Also, this is just a request by the prior PR government. It may amount to nothign in the new government. Joelito (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

On 2 January 2013 HERE I summarized the edit Buzity had entered on 29 December 2012 HERE with the comment that details can be found in the main article ("there is "main article" link already for the details"), namely Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012. The issue there was that, IMO, the information was redundant verbatim. In addition, there was at least one other article, 51st state, that contained at one point or another the identical information. Such level of multiple redundance, IMO, is not necessary for a detail that is not encyclopedicaly significant. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#NEWS. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The Puerto Rico Legislature expressed through a concurrent resolution to the 113th United States Congress and the U.S. President the will of the people of the Puerto Rico democratically expressed in the plebiscite held on November 6, 2012.

It is not this a recent development that belong to this article?

--Buzity (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Buzity, no one is saying it isn't a recent development. What is being said is that it doesn't belong in this article, at least not in that level of detail. It belongs in other, more focused, articles. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Buzity, what that website (puertoricoreport.org) is calling "the will of the people of Puerto Rico" (in this new more recent edit of yours) is something that has been officially challenged by incoming Governor Garcia Padilla, among others. Also, since it still remains to be seen how the Congress will act to any new Bills (the Resolution itself is insignificant since Congress is not legally bound to do anything about it), any Wikipedia text that gives weight to either political side would be a violation of WP:NPOV. As such, I have removed some parts of your edits. BTW -and FYI- sending a Resolution to the POTUS is an exercise in futility, since the POTUS cannot override the will of Congress - just FYI. Also, note that a 61% pro-statehood vote is not a super majority vote, further corroding "the will of the people" assessment of your puertorricoreport citation. Compare Puerto Rico's 61% to the supermajority votes of both Alaska and Hawaii prior to their even being considered for statehood by Congress and you will have another reason why the Resolution you cite may not amount to nothing for the new Congress. (BTW, I am not going to engage into a political debate on what the nov 6, 2012, means or doesn't mean - this is not the place for that; I am just saying your edits are in violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.) Please re-read the note by editor Joelito above, "this is just a request by the prior PR [legislature]. It may amount to nothing in the new government", and you will have even more reasons why the edit, as you entered it, is not the best way to depict the current state of affairs. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Suggested edit

In the introduction, reference is made that the indigenous Tainos disappeared due to "slavery" or "European infectious diseases." I think this inflammatory and unreferenced language should not appear in this article. Firstly, we don't know to what extent Tainos were in fact enslaved, as opposed to displaced to nearby islands, or even assimilated into the European population. Secondly, the facile accusation concerning how the Europeans infected the indigenous people of the Americas with "European" diseases has been called in to question by recent scholarship. For example, genetic and demographic studies have indicated that probably Syphilis came to Europe from the Americas, and not the other way around. And in a similar vein, although the indigenous people may have lacked adequate immunity from some diseases more prevalent in Europe (eg Smallpox), the actual extent to which these diseases contributed to a decrease in the local populations is quite unknown, and very likely to be much less than previously supposed. In fact, the estimates for the population density in the Americas, before and after Columbus, is much in question now, and such estimates may never be accurately known. Therefore, I suggest that reference to the Tainos demise, if such did occur, be couched in more NPOV terms.