Talk:Proposed political status for Puerto Rico/Archives/2012/December

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

PRUSVI

Shouldn't this article cover the various proposals that would include the USVI as part of a PR state? -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The idea of the merging of the United States Virgin Islands with Puerto Rico to become a single state is a significant option if Puerto Rico is to become a state. It is significant enough to have a subsection in this article along with the option of statehood, independence, retaining its current status or being a free associated state --Lj123 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?

The information at this article seems to be redundant. The first two sections appear to be lifted from Political status of Puerto Rico. The third section is a summary of the 2012 referendum, which is dealt with at its own article and also dealt with at "Political status of Puerto Rico". The "Statistics as a U.S. state" is barely better than a trivia section, and in any event could just as easily be at "Political status of Puerto Rico" or Puerto Rico. The next section "Historical support in American politics", as noted already in a cleanup template, violates guidelines by just providing a list of quotes. What's more, it is largely duplicative of what exists at "Political status of Puerto Rico". Most importantly, it only reflects the pro-statehood side, which is a major failing of this article overall. Equally troublesome in the same way are the sub-sections to it, which list organizations and individuals who support statehood.

In the end, this article doesn't appear to add anything to what is already provided at related articles that doesn't violate guidelines. Worse, it has a sharp bias toward statehood. So is there any compelling reason not to nominate this for deletion/merger? -Rrius (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article was recently (in the last week or so) merged from one titled Puerto Rico statehood movement. IMO, that was a better title for this article. Maybe it could be moved back into that article; it would complement the Puerto Rico independence movement article. I agree with you this article needs quite a bit of a clean up, but I wouldn't support an outright article deletion. That's just my opinion. Like you, I would like to hear from other editors. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • Keep as a stand alone article. An article that has no potential to be good should be deleted in my opinion, I think this article just needs cleanup work done (Agree with Mercy11) and would also oppose deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stand alone article. I also oppose deletion and agree with Knowledgekid87 this article just need a clean up work. --Buzity (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You three seem to be missing the point of the question. This article does essentially nothing not done at Political status of Puerto Rico, so why shouldn't it be merged with that one? Perhaps I need to put it more clearly (though I thought the title of the section did so already): What justifies the existence of this article? The fact that it could be something other than shit at some point is meaningless. Whether this article is great or a barely coherent mess is beside the point. What matters is whether it does something different from other articles. At this point, it doesn't appear to me to do so; in fact, it appears to be an attempt to set up a distinctively pro-statehood alternative to Political status of Puerto Rico. So why am I wrong? Why does it to you three to actually have a reason to exist? -Rrius (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This article belongs and is an integral part of the Category:Proposed states of the United States. It is just one article of many of that specific category on this encyclopedia! Political status of Puerto Rico article is not part of that Category. It is part of the category "Political history of Puerto Rico" on this encyclopedia. That is the reason to keep both article separated. --Buzity (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
If that is the answer, then there is no reason for this article to exist. Categories are merely a means to organize articles. They are not, have never been, and never will be a justification for having an article. The answer would be to put "Political status" in the category. -Rrius (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
First of all, there is no such thing as right or wrong, just differing points of views. I have explained why this article should stand on its own below. Please make sure you give it a read. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
What? Are you seriously suggesting that categories have fuck all to do with whether an article should exist? There is such a thing as truth. There is such a thing as nonsense. Whether the moon is made of rock or cheese is a matter of fact, not point of view. Nowhere in the discussions of what qualifies an article for inclusion at Wikipedia does categorization come into the matter. So yes, Buzity is just wrong about that. And your point of view that something can't be wrong is wrong. -Rrius (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Brother, WP:CIVIL and WP:CALM. I don't understand why you are directing the above message to me since I was not the one that brought categories into this matter. Have a straw and keep it cool. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? There is a move discussion in progress a section above, you couldn't have just waited? Ego White Tray (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, with the anti-consensus unmerging of Puerto Rico statehood movement, maybe this actually makes sense. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is not true. Subsequent to my question being posed, you made this move and inserted a section and some material to the lead that tries to justify the article and tries to justify your move. But there is almost no substance to the section. It is three empty sections and a scanty one. So my point holds. All this article does at present is echo stuff already at Political status of Puerto Rico. So can anyone address the actual question here without making a half-hearted attempt to repurpose the article first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrius (talkcontribs) 21:00, 23 November 2012‎ (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You believe the article has no substance but I and others believe otherwise. Now, to answer your question: articles that are too long are usually split onto other articles, see WP:TOOLONG. There's no problem with having this article since, as of this writing, Political status of Puerto Rico is quite long and hard to navigate and read. Check out our discussion at WikiProject Puerto Rico. You should also realize that no one here is required nor must answer your questions, so please, keep it civil (see WP:CIVIL) and assume good faith (see WP:AGF), and don't accuse other contributors of having an agenda, especially when they are being polite enough to answer your questions. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. This article does not expand on what is already at the other articles, so that whole argument just doesn't work.
As for why my questions should be answered, it is because it is fully my intention to widely circulate a merger proposal unless someone can explain why this article isn't just a tweaked copy of sections from other articles. My purpose was to give editors here a chance to dissuade me in case doing so would be a complete waste of time.
Calling your attempt to coat-rack this into a real article by creating a bunch of empty categories is a half-hearted attempt, so I don't see how calling it such is uncivil. If you want to build this into an actual discussion about the proposed statuses, then so be it. Make this a redirect to the article copies from, build the article in a sandbox, then put it here.
As for accusing people of having agendas and not assuming good faith, I did nothing of the kind. I noted in my opening contribution that the article reflects a bias, but I did not accuse anyone of inserting it intentionally. And all I accused you of is exactly what you did: while a move discussion was taking place above, you moved the article and added code, such as headings, without actually adding anything of substance. I have no idea what agenda, if any, you have, nor do I particularly care. All I care to hear from you is what use this article currently has, as opposed to the hopes you have for it. So far multiple editors have responded here, and none has said anything that justifies it. I figure I'll let this go at least a few more days (giving the discussion at least a week) before moving to a merger proposal, but I'm not sanguine about getting a reason that isn't either nonsense, like Buzity's wacky category-based argument, or hard to swallow, like your post move, coat-rack-y argument. -Rrius (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You are entitled to your own opinion but you must understand that Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As of this writing, yes, the article is not a Wikipedia:Good article but that's because of its convoluted history. Eventually as more editors contribute to it, it will be better. That's what cleanup templates are for and why this article has no many. This is acceptable and expected on Wikipedia.
In addition to that, the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico have voiced their opinion on this matter. They are not an authoritative group on what can or cannot be done on Wikipedia, but contributors tend to listen to their opinion on matters related to Puerto Rico. Once again, their opinion is just that, an opinion.
Now, regarding your desire to bring this up to a merge, please feel free to use {{merge to}} at any time, it's your right to do so should you wish to do so, but there is a reason why this article must stand on its own as I mentioned before: WP:SUMMARY and WP:TOOLONG. The article Political status of Puerto Rico is way, way too long as of this writing and splitting the subject of the different proposed political status into its own article is actually common practice on Wikipedia.
If you disagree with this assessment my advise would be to either:
Obviously I would prefer if you do an WP:RFC but per WP:IAR and WP:BEBOLD you are entitled to choose any of the aforementioned options. Whatever it is that you choose I will back you up and defend you per WP:IAR and WP:BEBOLD but you must also understand that the very same rules and policies that empower you, empower me as well.
Finally, this is the second time that I ask you politely to WP:CIVIL. Please keep weasel words to yourself and express your concerns from an NPOV. There won't be a third warning, per WP:RFCC.
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You haven't even bothered to note what I said that you think is uncivil. Is it uncivil to call a coat rack a coat rack, or is it uncivil to call Buzity's argument that makes no sense nonsense? That's twice now you've leveled vague allegations of incivility at me in addition to a ridiculous allegation of not assuming good faith. And now you make threats? Grow up or grow a thicker skin or try actually explaining what exactly is bothering you. Whichever you choose, take note that your petty attempts to intimidate are ineffective. I've asked you multiple times for you to explain your allegations, and you have ignored them. If you think that is going to play well if you go off and try complaining somewhere, you are sadly mistaken. If you won't even bother to explain to me how I have offended your sensibilities, let alone given me a chance to defend myself, no one will take you seriously. So, again, act like an adult.
Moving on, you link to a ton of guidelines there, but have you read any of them? Wikipedia articles do not need to be perfect, but an article can't simply be a slightly different version of another article. At this point, that is all that is here. You can't promise that at some point the key content will appear and then rely on WP:Imperfect to keep the article from being deleted. You can throw around all the guidelines you want and lay claim to justification under as many of them as you like, but the fact remains that WP:Summary and the rest are completely irrelevant. This article isn't an expanded version of what is at Political Status of Puerto Rico or of any section or sections of it. It simply copies, with some alteration, what is already there or elsewhere. Empty sections for the various possible statuses do not save what is a fundamentally flawed article.
But my own travel plans give you an opportunity. It is unlikely that a discussion begun now will end quickly enough, so I won't bother with it until around the middle of January. That gives you about a month and a half to take what is a horrendous article and turn it into something that wouldn't be better as a redirect. You said above it isn't GA, which is quite the understatement—at the moment, it isn't even a worthwhile article. It is an unfocused mess. Your move and restructuring (which was iffy given other circumstances) helped some, but it is still quite bad. I can't understand how you can look at this article and not see that what should be the focus of it, given the title, is almost completely empty.
The subsections that should be absolutely central contain "see also" links to what one would expect to be subarticles. Two of those work that way, yet there is no summary. Why? The other two are links to articles that don't seem worthy of existence; they are stubs that would be better as the text of those subsections. It makes no sense. The only subsection in what should be the crucial part of this article is the "Comparisons with U.S. states", which has a tenuous connection to this article and would fit, if anywhere, at the statehood movement article. But if you removed it, all you'd have are versions of sections already included at Political status of Puerto Rico. The reason of course is that this article used to claim to be about something else, but you've repurposed it by changing the title and adding some empty sections. You seem to believe the article is currently more or less a stub. But it isn't It is an article that claims to have a topic, but spends the bulk of its text summarizing what is summarized elsewhere. Right now this article is sandbox-worthy. I hope you make the most of the next month and a half. -Rrius (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Brother, I do not WP:OWN this article. I won't be working on it and you can't threaten people with an ultimatum. If you are so bothered by its current status you have the following options, as I have already stated several times before:
  1. leave it as it is,
  2. WP:FIXIT,
  3. tag it with a {{merge to}},
  4. issue an WP:AFD, or
  5. issue an WP:RFC.
I don't understand all this extensive and elaborative discussion you are going over and over again and again when the solution to your concerns are right in front of you and at the palm of your hand. It seems to me that you are doing this for other reasons rather than for improving Wikipedia itself.
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
That you don't understand is your problem. I have said exactly why I started this discussion and what I plan to do. But here we go again: I started this section because I didn't see a purpose for this article and wanted to give people a chance to defend it before I went to the trouble of taking action against it. The rationales given in response were terrible. Then you changed the article in a way that attempted to make it better, but did little of substance, and nothing to make it an article worthy of inclusion in the project. You attempted to justify it saying that all pages are works in progress, which falls flat. I then gave fair warning that I will be starting a merger or deletion discussion after the holidays, and noted that this gives you and others who seem to think this article isn't a waste of space a chance to improve it so as to bolster that case. It was not an ultimatum, and declaring it to be such is overly dramatic drivel. If you don't wish to contribute to improving the article, I don't care. And I don't need you to tell me my options, and never have; I've already told you exactly what I intend to do, as you should have figured out from your "ultimatum" talk. Oh, and I'm not your brother, so please don't address me as such. -Rrius (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)