Jump to content

Talk:Implications of Puerto Rico's political status

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move request

[edit]

As the current article title flouts MOS:DATED, I'm requesting a move. If you disagree, please discuss. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Implications of Puerto Rico's political status, which resolves the MOS:DATED issue and appears to be unopposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Implications of Puerto Rico's current political status → Implications of Puerto Rico's status as a U.S. colony – current name flouts MOS:DATED Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, not a colony. O.N.R. (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a problem with "colony". I do not think most reliable sources today refer to Puerto Rico as a "colony" anymore, but as a territory, so any proposed title should instead be Implications of Puerto Rico's status as a U.S. territory. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should change it because the title is not long enough as it is? The current title seems fine. It is a colony, a territory, an unincorporated territory, an insular area, a country, etc etc. etc. and for that reason the current title is fine. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be changed to [[Implications of Puerto Rico's current political status]] since the title of a related article is Political status of Puerto Rico? or even should the articles be merged? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also per MOS:DATED the word "currently" should usually be avoided so maybe this is a case where "current" does not hurt in understanding what the article is about. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can also be changed to Implications of Political Status of Puerto Rico to match the style of the main article Political status of Puerto Rico. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clear NPOV violation.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support the move if it instead ended with "U.S. territory"? O.N.R. (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would retract my oppposition. I would not outright support it as I have no strong opinions on the matter other than that calling Puerto Rico a colony is a NPOV violation--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The term colony is no longer used. For example, the UK changed the term to "overseas territory" in its legislation. Furthermore, it was removed from the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories. While one can argue it remains a colony, the lack of consensus of the term in reliable sources, even for territories that have not been decolonized, means that we cannot use it. TFD (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Colony" is a term that is used to describe Puerto Rico.
Cheers! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/telling-us-history-through-territories-180971004/
--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, an argument can be made that PR remains a colony, it is not the normal term used to describe it. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to take sides on arguments but to present them in a balanced way. ~~~~ TFD (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: There's clearly consensus against "colony", but further discussion of other possibilities (e.g. Implications of Puerto Rico's political status) may be helpful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I oppose the move but not because inclusion of "colony" is a violation of NPOV, for it is not (as it has been demonstrated by plenty of authoritative, reliable sources). Plenty of contemporaneous sources do describe Puerto Rico as a colony, but also as a territory, an unincorporated territory, an insular area, a country, and even a nation. However, this is not the place to discuss which designation is right or not - they all are right as they are all sourced to reliable sources: in addition, none of those designations are mutually exclusive.
The fact is the contents of this article is on the implications of the current status, not the status itself (which is something that's covered at Political status of Puerto Rico).
My opposition comes because those descriptors (colony, territory, unincorporated territory, insular area, country, nation, etc.) are precisely part of the political status that this article intents to relate the consequences (implications) of. That said, "political status" is the most appropriate title for it reflects exactly what the contents of the article will be - on implications of the status. For the status itself, the reader can go to Political status of Puerto Rico and read there about the arguments, by reliable sources, both for and against the various descriptors (colony, territory, insular area, country, etc.).
The article should not be moved to Implications of Puerto Rico's status as a U.S. territory for the same reason it shouldn't be moved to Implications of Puerto Rico's status as a U.S. colony, namely, not because it is POV in the traditional sense, but because takes sides, and I explain: if we are going to have an article titled Implications of Puerto Rico's status as a U.S. territory then, to do justice to WP:NPOV, we should also have a separate article titled Implications of Puerto Rico's status as a U.S. colony. Likewise for moves that include similar descriptors in its title. But, again, none of this is necessary because the article on status is at Political status of Puerto Rico, whereas this article is only for the implications of that status -- no matter if you call its status a colony, territory, country, insular area, or something else.
I would support, however, a move to Implications of Puerto Rico's political status, removing the "current" from the title as it stands.
BTW, by 12 June 2013, the article Political status of Puerto Rico had become almost unmanageably too long, and Yours Truly spawned off several (some 3 or 4) new articles from it, one of them being Implications of Puerto Rico's current political status, (here). Any attempt to merge this article back into Political status of Puerto Rico would be, IMO, counterproductive. Mercy11 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Implications_of_Puerto_Rico%27s_political_status&oldid=1200231640"