Talk:History of Puerto Rico/Archive 1

Before Featured Article approval

Copyright violation?

I'm a little concerned that much of the recent changes to this article include verbatim copying of material from http://welcome .topuertorico.org/history.shtml this site. I've no problem with using that site as a guide, but mimicking the structure and copying exact phrasing is at best plagiarism and at worst a copyright violation. Because it is difficult for me to determine just how extensive the copying is, I'm mentioning it here first, to give some other eyes a chance to look it over before listing it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

Also, User:Jmoliver marked the edits as "minor" changes when it is in fact a complete re-write of the article. Please don't mark such major changes as minor. I had left messages on the user talk page, but with no response. older≠wiser 13:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Additional Copyright Violations? When wikifying the Invasion of 1898 section I did some googling to check some facts and found that some of the chronology had been lifted directly from this page: http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/chronpr.html. For example, this passage from the Politcal Reforms section was lifted directly from that page:

Dr. Julio J. Henna and Robert H. Todd, prominent leaders of the Puerto Rican section of the Cuban Revolutionary Party, began to correspond with United States President McKinley and Senate in hopes that they would consider including Puerto Rico in whatever intervention was planned for Cuba. Henna and Todd also provided the U.S. government with information about the Spanish military presence on the island.

I didn't closely compare the two pages to find more examples, but it's clear that this is a second area of possible plagiarism in addition to the above. I've added a citation but I don't think that's enough. Both these cases need to be addressed more thoroughly. mennonot 23:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

History of PR

Not my intention to copy/paste plagiaries anybody's work here, I contacted the author of the page mentioned- waiting for a response. I am researching the subject to see if I can contribute a better article here. If deemed so, feel free to undo any changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoliver (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 June 2004 (UTC)

References need to be cited

The problem with this article (amongst so many others, crippling Wikipedia)is nobody cites their sources. All the information on this page is speculative without them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.228.17 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 April 2005 (UTC)

Invasion of 1898

Under this heading, the number of troops in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs need to be reconciled, somehow. 162.84.72.171 19:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the troops count in the 3rd paragraph because I could not find a reference other than this one http://welcome .topuertorico.org/history4.shtml. All other sites state that close 3,300 troops departed from Guantánamo and disembarked in Guánica. See [1] for a detailed count of troops. Joelito 21:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Citation style

You may want to consider changing the citation style so that the citation occurs following the punctuation. As in, after a period or a comma, as apparently this is what the Chicago style guide recommends, and this is what most FAs use. Pepsidrinka 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I will correct this promptly. Joelito 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Random thoughts

I feel much more comfortable using the article talk page as opposed to the FAC page because I don't really feel I understand the FA standard well enough to put my input in. However, because the peer review is no longer open (atleast it shouldn't be if the FAC has started), I'm going to insert my random thoughts here that IMO, could standarize this article. I don't know what the precedent is, but IMO, words that haven't been assimilated into the English language, e.g., cacique, Mayaguez, Arecibo, guiro should probably be italicized. Also, do the two capalitized words denote proper nouns? They aren't linked, so perhaps you should either write their translations within parenthesis or link them. I think their might be a way to wikilink to wikitionary, though I'm not completely sure. Pepsidrinka 05:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Capitalized words are municipalities of Puerto Rico and the words not present in English should be in italic. Joelito 05:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

After Featured Article approval

Singular, plural ?

Partido Estadistas Unido or Partido Estadistas Unidos ... ?? I have reverted changes to the name (someone thought it meant the United States and changed it to that), so a wikilink to the exact correct name would be good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Its Partido Estadistas Unidos. A quick google search reveals that is the standard use. We just have to pick an appropriate reference. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I did an incorrect revert, because I thought the correct grammar was Partido ... Unido, and that's what the article had. Oops. I'll drop an apology note to the editor. Can you pick a ref for fixing this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the change, and no I didn't mistake it with United States, I knew how it is spelled in proper Spanish don't revert changes on speculations if you aren't sure better yet next time ask the user that made the change for am explanation of his edit before reverting. -凶 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It was the person before you who changed it to the United States, that I also had to revert, and then I tried to make the names agree (one was singular, the other plural). I'm sorry to upset you; I'll unwatch the article now. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No topic given

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.115.120 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

history or prehistory?

This article begins thus:

The history of Puerto Rico began with the settlement of the archipelago of Puerto Rico by the Ortoiroid people between 3000 and 2000 BC.

Is that history, or prehistory? My understanding is that "history" means events that are documented; i.e. humans made records of events when they happened and we still have those records and we get the story from them. 128.101.249.149 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are conflating "history" with Recorded history. Pre-history is the study of events that happened before recorded history; history is both (recorded and unrecorded) Raul654 16:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Plurality vs. Majority

I changed the word "majority" to "plurality" in the following statement, because winning an election by less than 50.1% of the vote is called a plurality, not a majority. "Luis A. Ferré was elected governor on November 5, 1968, with 43.6% of the vote, the first time a pro-statehood governor has received a plurality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.84.142.80 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Referendums on statehood?

This ambiguity continues to spark political debates which dominate Puerto Rican society.

Would be very enlightning to list the last few referendums in which voters were asked to choose whether to petition the U.S. to become the 51st state. The percentages for and against would illuminate how strong the ambiguity is. Tempshill 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually its more ambiguous than that, on the last referendum there were five options and they came in this order: None of the above, Statehood, Independence, Free Association and Commonwealth, how about that? [2]-凶 05:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

These have since been added. -- Beland (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No topic given, again

I do not feel comfortable using this website because of all its violation and copyright info. I would rather go to the page that was copid from. THank you for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.78.169 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Invite to Viva Florida 500

I'd like to invite fellow Wikipedians interested in Florida history to join in our new project page for celebrating our state's 500th anniversay at Viva_Florida_500. Please review and join in getting this project off the ground. It's more than just about Ponce de Leon and his landing it is also about other cultures and what new content we can bring into Wiki such as adding new information about the Native Cultures that were here when this period of discovery began.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Profanity

There is a profanity at the start of section 2.1 (omar is a fkn pimp) which isn't there to remove from the edit pages. Can someone who understands how it is posted there remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.116.240 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Lack of References

This article has a serious lack of needed references. If it is to maintain its FA status many references need to be added.--Philpill691 (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please state where you thinkare needed and I will gladly add them. Joelito (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the problem is the worst in the "Spanish rule (1493–1898)" section; there are several major paragraphs with 0-2 references in them (especially in "European threats", "Early 19th century", and "Struggle for sovereignty"). Sorry for the delayed response. --Philpill691 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added a Refimprove template to the top of the article to encourage editors to work to add citations. If this problem persists for much longer this article will be put through a Featured article review and eventually possibly be delisted as a featured article. I hope this motivates someone to work to fix this issue. --Philpill691 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Your revert to the old 2006 version doesn't seem to have improved the article in terms of citations. In fact it seems to have made things worse (it’s gone from 74 citations to 62 citations). In addition, it seems to have caused a reduction in content (specifically in the Spanish rule section). Therefore I have undone your reversion back to the old version. The problem here is that this article was promoted to FA when FA standards were a lot looser. Neither the featured 2006 version nor the present version would qualify for FA today (perhaps not even GA). So unless someone makes major improvements to this article soon, it must be demoted. I recommend you and other editors work to add many citations to this article, and otherwise bring this article to current FA standards. Best of luck. --Philpill691 (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If it turns you on, go ahead demote pal - I dont waste my time with your type. Otherwise go ahead and improve it yourself. ;-) My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

If I had the time to go through this entire article and add dozens of references then I would; alas I do not. I certainly do not want this article to be demoted; that being said, if no one is willing to work to bring it up to current FA standards then I will do what is necessary in order to maintain the important meaning of the FA star ("Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer"). --Philpill691 (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm new editing here but I am willing to give it a try if that will help keep the article as a featured article. For starters, I have replaced the reference marked as a dead link (which linked to a tertiary non-free source) with a more suitable secondary reference. I will continue to look for other supporting references for the rest of the article. I am new here so feel free to let me know if I do something wrong or if there's a better way to do it. Otherwise, I will go on, boldy editing whatever I can. --Nancystodd (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

After Featured Article demotion

Awful article, April 2018

How can an article titled the 'History of Puerto Rico' not mention who the governor was from 1914 to 1924? At least Governor of Puerto Rico mentions Howard Kern. (It also claims that he authored the 1916 Jones–Shafroth Act, without any citation.)

Sometimes it seems as though WP coverage of US history is willfully shabby when it comes to embarassments. This article, like that one, is just one example.Twang (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Twang: Wikipedia doesn't assign editors to work on certain articles and not others. If a fact is simply missing (as opposed to having been removed), it's probably because no volunteer has noticed and taken an interest in adding it. It's also worth considering that not every leader is necessarily worth mentioning in a history narrative. A quick web search finds no evidence of a Howard Kern being governor of Puerto Rico, and that would also contradict the comprehensive List of governors of Puerto Rico. Were you seeing this person mentioned in reliable sources? -- Beland (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: Kern WAS mentioned in the GPR article when I wrote that note 2-1/2 years ago (and complained about the lack of a citation, probably because I found no mention of him anywhere else).

After 17 years, I'm well aware how WP works; I often write notes in Talk pages, because I don't have time to research and fix the endless shoddy work alone. I hope that will lead to fixes (preferably in less than 2.5 years). Thanks for your note and your efforts to improve the quality of this article.

All the historical and present-day victims of US (Spanish, German, Dutch, French etc.) policy in the Caribbean and Latin America deserve better, fairer treatment here.

Optimistically, one day the history of countries and important inventions will be half as finished as the countless completist histories of sports-teams and celebrities. Twang (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems a bit unfair to describe the failings as willful, if you're familiar with the process. I found it rather demotivating to hear the article described as awful and shoddy, especially after finding out the allegedly missing content was untrue. Beland (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I must agree with Twang's assessments here. I'm kind of surprised that this was ever a featured article. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 16:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beland:, @Struthious Bandersnatch:, @Twang: I have the Historia de Puerto Rico book by Salvador Brau. I love his countenace but besides that I should probably read or listen to his book (read by a lady with a Madrileño accent). Its only cited once in this entire article. I'll try. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

References

An exodus of part of the population has been forecasted by a research unit

After the 2017 Irma hurricane. --Wisdood (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source to back up this statement?? Who or what is this research unit? --Chewings72 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

After the 2020 census results are complete, we'll be able to update the population tables on each municipio / barrio article.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)