Talk:Afro–Puerto Ricans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Words

the word "chevere" is listed here in the language catagory as coming from the african/spanish patois/creole. i thought there was a similar word in french? also i think it's used in places where there is no history of black people or slavery (mexico, chile i think). i dunno. if someone knows french or more spanish, they can confirm/deny whether this word belongs here. --66.108.113.147 02:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Facts

Please do not dilute this excellent article by adding POV's and baised information.

First. In regard to the Mandingo merchant theory. This article is about the proven immigration of African slaves to Puerto Rico based on facts. The mandingo merchant theory has never been proven to apply to Puerto Rico. The artifacts and skeletons found at the Tibes Ceremonial Center in Ponce have not been traced to Africa. This is not to say that the theory may be true in Mexico or other aereas, but then again some scholars believe that the Asians and the Vikings were the first to settle the New World. Until proven beyond a doubt, history cannot be rewritten.

Second. This article is "not" about the history of the African Cheif Tarik and the indepth conquest of Spain by the Moors. This article contains a breif explaination as to why the Spanish were more tolerant towards blacks then their European conterparts. Whoever is interested in the indepth history of the invasion of Spain may look up Spanish History, Moors or Cheif Tarik.

Third. Phrases such as "Great Chief", "viciously raped and sexually abused" and "(rape was rampant)" are considered POV by Wikipedia standards and unencyclopedic. Such additions maybe considered vandalism.

An article is written on sourced and proven facts. Unless a reliable source, such as a an official document and not someome else's webpage, be provided such additions as the Mandingo Merchant Theory are unacceptable. Tony the Marine 16:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

For example many Puerto Ricans have the habit of swallowing the "s"

Actually we pronounce it like a "j" (similar to an American "h"). We don't "swallow" it. It's just not true. If no one objects within a few days I am going edit that part. --Pasajero 22:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, almost the entire section on language is pure original research, and some of it patently false ("pasa" as an african word??? mondongo[1]??? Eso es estar tripiando en ketchup, y no es Heinz!?!?!?!?) Until the material is not sourced correctly, I am removing it. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

{{POV-title}} - Weasel worded title

The title is clearly weasel worded. "Immigration" without qualifiers clearly has a benign tone. Since I do not see extensive discussion here, I would like to know why Slavery in Puerto Rico - a more correct title - redirects here. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, I respect your contributions in Wikipedia, but don't accuse me of "Weasel wording". It is clear that the vast majority of the African population that arrived in the island was as a result of the slave trade, which is an immigration of people as defined. However, not all those of African descent were slaves. Many African free-man arrived with the Conquistadors and many more immigrated from non-Spanish colonies, such as Jamaica and St. Dominique (Haiti), to Puerto Rico and provided a population base to support the Puerto Rican garrison and its forts. The article is not only about slavery even though I have covered and that is why "Slavery in Puerto Rico " is redirected to this article. The title is proper, it is about an immigration of people, be it forced or voluntary, be it illegal or legal. Tony the Marine 18:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words on wikipedia are, according to the page on them, "phrases such as "some people say" without sources". If Tony can supply good citations illustrating that there are more sources of African immigration to Puerto Rico than the slave trade, and ensure that the article discusses them, then I can't see any reason why the current title doesn't fit. SGGH ^speak! 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony that "Immigration" covers both the voluntary as well as involuntary arrival of Africans to Puerto Rico, and should not be considered a "weasel word", nor should his intent be construed as trying to minimize the brutality of slavery.Pr4ever 20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, this isn't personal, I didn't even know it was you who did it, but it is about content. My apologies if you thought I was engaging in a personal attack.

I still insist that slavery and the slave trade cannot possibly be buried underneath "immigration". Slavery here is not give due weight in the title, and the title gives the impression of voluntary immigration.

And am sorry, "forced immigration" (the only way "immigration" can fit "slavery") is a classic example of a weasel word.

What about African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico? That would address my due weight concerns, while keeping the peripheral but certainly notable and verifiable non-slave trade immigration. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, at least in my opinion. -凶 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

On another note how come this article still hasn't gone trough a GAC? in my opinion the article is fairly close excludung some prose that needs cleanup, besides that the only probable issue is the need for the "Famous Puerto Ricans of African Ancestry" to be rewritten in prose. -凶 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Cerejota, your suggestion sounds good. No offense taken. Tell me the reason for your actions in the language section so that we can have that straighten out. You know that I'm O.K. with you, amigo Tony the Marine 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See here: [2]

It is total original research. I am not suggesting we have to source every word we put, but we should be able to find some secondary sources on this that provide words (although I think then the issue is notability - who decides what we can or cannot put?). Mondongo (and possibly mofongo) is a key example, it is a word of old, very old, possibly Visigothic origin. It is as European as it gets, not even Latin. Yet it was listed as an "African" word. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Do not remove a GA tag placed by a nominator. You are not in the GA nor a member of its peer review committee. Such actions may be deemed as vandalism. Another thing, I completely disagree that a well written and sourced article as this be "merged" with a poorely written and "tagged" as unsourced article as Black history in Puerto Rico, therefore as an administrator, I have removed the merged tags and redirected the poorly written one to this one which covers said topics.

I have complied with the reguest of tittle change but, rescent events led mte to believe that thiere is a personal agenda against this particular article. Instead of critizing, make positive contributions to it so that the same will make GA status. Tony the Marine 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing problems? is odd that this comes from the same user that blanked a entire sourced section, the article has at least one reference in almost all of its paragraphs, it doesn't have "referencing" problems if you disagree with the refs then complain about what you see unfit in them don't go around removing {{GAnominee}} templates, that is just inmature. The process as you call it was taken as the GAC page states it, stop your silly content dispute and let a neutral user judge if this is a Good Article or not. -凶 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Which reliably sourced material did I remove? Thanks!--Cerejota 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

1) GA was not done correctly. Since you restored, please complete the process of nomination correctly. I couldn't find the nomination in any of the categories in WP:GA.

2) You might disagree with the merger proposal, but if you would have read the discussion in the correct page (Talk:Black history in Puerto Rico) you would have seen my rationale. Please do not remove merge proposal until further discussion in the correct talk page.

As I explained there, my intention is not a full merge, but to move the obvious historic components there, and make this page solely about its topic. There is a lot of material to have both a Black history of Puerto Rico and a African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico. WHat is wrong with proposing this?

I have restored the Black history in Puerto Rico page, because it was redirected (which amounts to a deletion) without consensus, and have restored the merger proposal. Please discuss things before doing them.

3) Lastly, please apologize for this uncalled-for personal attack: I have complied with the reguest of tittle change but, rescent events led mte to believe that thiere is a personal agenda against this particular article. Instead of critizing, make positive contributions to it so that the same will make GA status. I have made a positive contribution: I removed unsourced OR and suggested a better title. I am also trying to better the depth and breath of the topic by not just limiting it to immigration, but also black history in Puerto Rico in general.

I am saddened that you have chosen to continue to make this about people and not content. Please read WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and -as it seems you are taking things too personal- WP:OWN. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction, I nominated the article where it belongs in World History, yesterday as seen here [3], cheers! -凶 23:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed it because thats one of the categories I looked for it... my apologies. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• A redirect does not amount to a deletion when a poorly written article is redirected to a supirior one which covers all subjects involved. You are more then welcomed to add to this article any verifiable information of the other and maybe even add "Black history of Puerto Rico" as a section. Thank you for citing policy, but I know that I am within policy and now it will be up to the community to decide. Tony the Marine 23:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I proposed a solution here, please read it and express yourselves about it to see if we can get an agreement. -凶 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Boricua peacepipe

O.K., let us all smoke the "Boricua" peacepipe like the good Puerto Ricans that we are who only want what is the best for our island. I may have misunderstood some of the propositions here, so my apologies. I like the proposed solution by "Dragon", so how about this: Cerejota, merge into African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico what ever verifiable information that Black history in Puerto Rico has, but that this article lacks and after that is done I will delete "Black history of Puerto Rico" and rename this page as such. Sounds like a plan? Tony the Marine 00:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That is way better solution, thanks for calming down, the pipe was good! As I put on Dragon's talk page, I was thinking the same. But keep the redirects, I think that there is enough material that we might need to fork in the future. I have a couple of books in fact on these topics that might point in greater sourcing.

Since las cuentas claras conservan amistades:

1) Merge the few granules of good material we can find in Black history in Puerto Rico into here.

2) Delete Black history in Puerto Rico

3) Rename this into Black history in Puerto Rico.

I propose we copy what we find relevant to Talk:African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico/mergerdrop so we can try to source it first, so the GA is not affected. I also suggest we do the delete/rename part before we merge, so that we can move quickly with the easy part, and less quickly with the hard part.

Lastly, tech note, be on the watch for double redirects...

Thanks!--Cerejota 00:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, so Cerejota, do the merge thing, since you have a better idea and let me know for the rename. Hey, somos hermanos. Damn, I can't let my "Boricua" and Marine" temper get the better part of me (smile). Tony the Marine 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Its all cool. Lets give it a day (or at least a few hours) to allow for this to be consensus, and since I already moved the content to Talk:African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico/mergerdrop, I think you should execute then. Also remember to close the AfD as "merge per talk page" just in case some other of the guys in there want to DRV. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think enough time passed, do the change! I will work on the sandbox as time allows, as per my proposal. Thanks! --Cerejota 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done! The "immigration series" template will redirect article to "new" name, so need to change there. Tony the Marine 04:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Great, time to work it! Thanks!--Cerejota 03:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Black Puerto Ricans?

Or is it to early? Thanks!--Cerejota 03:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion, I think that "Distinguished Puerto Ricans of African Ancestry" is a more proper tittle since we Boricuas are not generally into clasifing our people into races as the "Americanos" are. You know how it is in the states, people are more interested in dividing their own peoplpe into races instead of considering themselves plainly as "Americans". Do I make any sense? Anyway, if we are looking towards a future FAC, the bullet points in front of the names must be eliminated and the contents worked into a paragraph format. I can do that. Tony the Marine 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the title (except I would remove the "Distinguished" for brevity: if you are mentioned in wikipedia you *are* notable/distinguished... besides "Distinguished" is a usually a ceremonial honorific in english, not like "distinguidos" in spanish) It was precisely concern with FAC/GA that led me to thing about forking the list. Wouldn't it be easier to link to a list than to "fix" it? Thanks!--Cerejota 05:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with you Cerejota, the word "Distinguished" could be replaced because it can seem as POV. It can be replaced with "notable". Now, in regard to linking it to a "list", that would have been a good idea sometime ago, but not now. There is a rash of "Anti-list" delentionist going on with some success. Believe it or not, they even wanted to delete the List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients and the List of Puerto Ricans, but together with some friends we put up a fight and won. What I suggest (and I can start on it soon) is to work the actual list in "Notable Black Puerto Ricans" into a paragraph format. Tony the Marine 07:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You know I have a knack for XfDs. I wouldn't worry about it. ;) But if paragraph format is considered better I have no objection. Thanks! --Cerejota 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

I see you've put this article up as a GAC - I'm not going to review it fully, seeing as I don't think I've reached that stage of Wikidom yet. However, there's no way it'll be passed with its references in the state they're currently in. Use {{citeweb}} templates at least to get them cleaned up. Seegoon 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The article is extremely close to GA status but needs a bit of work before getting there. I am listing the issues that need to be sorted out before the article is passed.

1) The lead is a bit too short, and does not really summarize the entire article properly. As is stands there is only one sentence that discusses black history after the abolition of slavery. Considering roughly a third of the article is dedicated to this, the lead needs to reflect this. You should add a few more sentences here, in particular about the Spanish-American War, which isn't mentioned at all.

• Done Tony the Marine 23:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

2) There are some issues with images. Bomba.gif does not have a fair-use rationale, and I doubt that it would qualify as fair-use even with one as the artist isn't mentioned in the article. You should probably find another image. preferably one from an artist discussed in the article

• Removed image. This will be taken care of soon, since the artist is a personal freind of mine and I will request the proper permission. Tony the Marine 23:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

3) I am unclear what this means: "Capt. Miguel Henriquez (c.1680-17??), Puerto Rican (17??-18??), " What does the 'Puerto Rican' part mean?

• Fixed and Done Tony the Marine 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

4) Be consistent in the way things are written. Either use numbers for centuries (e.g 19th century) or letters (nineteenth century). At the moment, there are both in the article. One style should be used for the entire article. Done used numbers instead of letters Tony the Marine 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

5) There is no reference for the "Currently" section.

• Added reference, other references will be found in the proper sub-sections of the current section Tony the Marine 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

6) Reference 22 has no retrieved date and does not work. You will have to find a new reference here.

• Fixed and Done' Tony the Marine 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

7) Reference 32 has no retrieved date.

• Done Tony the Marine 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that once all these issues are resolved, the article can be passed. You can ask me questions on my talk page. Zeus1234 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Don Omar & Tego Calderón

While I don't particularly care for their music, their lifestyle habits, etc, they are extremely popular in and out of Puerto Rico, are certainly among the 10 best-known Puerto Rican entertainers today and should be in the list. The best example is today's Agencia EFE article highlighting Calderón's upcoming visit to Madrid, at <http://www.endi.com/noticia/musica/flash!/el_abayarde_contraataca/261138> Pr4ever 19:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

When I reverted the addition my edit summary stated that it was in mho=my humble opinion, now I'm not saying they don't have a degree of notability but they really haven't done anything significant, on that note I also belive Otilio Warrington should be removed, there might be some other entries that I haven't noticed yet. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS clarification re hyphen/en dash

So, I've had some clarity over at MOS:AFFIXDASH and MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. I've started a new thread to keep it easy to navigate. The response there was that Afro–Puerto Rican is wrong because Afro- is a combining form. I have provisionally suggested some new wording on that page to clarify usage for pages such as this one and Afro–Latin Americans. At the moment, it seems like they should both use a hyphen and not an en dash, as follows:

• Afro-Puerto Rican
• Wrong: Afro–Puerto Rican
• Afro-Latin American
• Wrong: Afro–Latin American
• Afro-Peruvian American when used as a noun and Afro-Peruvian-American culture when used as an adjective (consider recasting: Peruvian Americans of African descent or the culture of Peruvian Americans of African descent)

Incidentally, it was editing an article with the last term (Afro-Peruvian American) that made me seek clarification again, because the possibility of Afro–Peruvian-American made my head hurt.

I'm parking this here until a few more people weigh in at MOS, since it could result in renaming a bunch of articles, so I want to make sure we're 100% right here.

Tagging those previously involved in the discussion: @BenSci54, @SilverLocust, @Tektonson, @Arctic Circle System, @Andrewa, @Hyphenation Expert, @BarrelProof@Iwaqarhashmi, @RodRabelo7. Lewisguile (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Bensci54 fix ping. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile The issue here isn't whether it's a combining form or not (you are correct, it is), it's that it is modifying more than one word. They are "Latin Americans" that are "Afro", not "Americans" that are "Afro-Latin". MOS is clear than an endash is correct in this case. Bensci54 (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that part was clear. It was more than none of the examples at AFFIXDASH included combining forms, whereas the prior section (DUALNATIONALITIES) did, but only to say that combining forms were different to regular affixes. This has now been clarified at MOS:AFFIXDASH, so that "Afro–Puerto Rican" is specifically an example. Hopefully this will avoid any confusion in future. Lewisguile (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Should be Afro-Puerto Rican, not Afro–Puerto Rican

Re the change from "Afro-Puerto Rican" to "Afro–Puerto Rican", I think there's been a mistake in interpreting MOS. MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES precludes combining forms and it's my belief that this also applies to MOS:AFFIXDASH too.

The intent of changing the hyphen to an en-dash, I believe, is to differentiate the original compound from the newly added words to make it clear what the subject is. The en dash serves as a "higher order hyphen", in the sense that "anti–Afro-Puerto Rican" means "anti-(Afro-Puerto Ricans)" rather than "(anti-Afro) Puerto Ricans". The latter would suggest Puerto Ricans opposed to Afros/Africans, whereas the former makes clear the stance is one against people who are Afro-Puerto Rican (as a single category). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#En_dash

"Afro–Puerto Rican" instead suggests a relationship such as "African–Puerto Rican trade", and would still be wrong per MOS: DUALNATIONALITIES. The letter of the law may appear to be correct, but the spirit isn't — and the result not only doesn't make sense but serves to subordinate/distance the "Afro-" from the "Puerto Rican".

I wanted to raise it with everyone here to discuss first, before raising it for possible move review.

Edited: I made a mess of this. Have cleaned up my threads to make the point clearer. Lewisguile (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bensci54, SilverLocust, Tektonson, Arctic Circle System, Andrewa, Hyphenation Expert, BarrelProof, and Iwaqarhashmi: pinging. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the pings! Lewisguile (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, though I have no strong feelings on this one way or the other. Hope that helps! Arctic Circle System (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I almost didn't comment but then felt I should anyway.

It's a minor thing in the scheme of things but I've noticed a trend where the MOS has been interpreted in one particular way for this issue, and a bunch of articles have now been changed according to that interpretation.

But it misses the spirit of the rule in English: that the en dash is used as a "higher order hyphen" to clarify the subject (which comes either before or after the en dash). "Ex–Prime Minister" is a former PM, not a minister who was previously "prime". It's like the function of brackets in mathematics.

In this case, inserting the en dash between "Afro" and "Puerto Rican" ends up splitting the subject into two proposed entities, rather than treating it as a singular subject. An uncharitable reading is that it's intended to undermine the inherent Puerto Ricanness of Black Puerto Ricans; a charitable reading is that it's a mistake that potentially falls afoul of WP:CSB. Lewisguile (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Lewisguile, Cambridge clearly states that Afro- is a prefix, meaning "of or connected with Africa", and gives two examples of its use: "Afro-Caribbean culture" and "Afro-American literature". (I suppose they don't necessarily follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, of course.) RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And so does Wiktionary, for what it's worth. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

As a follow-up, every example under WP:MOS:PREFIXDASH is also an adjectival compound, whereas Afro-Puerto Rican isn't: Lewisguile (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I saw that, too, but worry that perhaps my poor wording has muddled things.

Note that Cambridge also describes a combining form here:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/combining-form

It gives the example of Anglo and Anglo-American, which is directly comparable. Anglo-American is a single name compounded from two words; Anglo isn't a preposition or a relational term in the sense meant by WP:MOS:PREFIXDASH.

Note also that all the examples given at WP:MOS:PREFIXDASH are compounding or amending compounds. E.g., "Ex–Prime Minister". But Puerto Rican isn't a compound in the same sense. We're not talking about Puertos from a place called Rica who are African (three things). We're talking about Puertos Ricans (one thing) who are also African (thus two things total), and thus one compound not two.

So you'd only use an en dash to compound "Afro-Puerto Rican" with something else. Lewisguile (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"Puerto Rican" is a compound word formed by "Puerto", "Rico", and "-an". RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is a singular place and Puerto Ricans are a singular people (Puertans and Ricans aren't different things; there isn't one without the other). Afro-Puerto Rican is a singular compound (Afro + Puerto Rican); all three words form the compound. Reading the WP page, it suggests en dashes only replace the hyphen when compounding a compound. If that makes sense?

So "Afro-Puerto Rican" is only one compound, but "Afro-Puerto Rican–American" or "Anti–Afro-Puerto Rican" would be compounds of a compound, and this require the en dash.

Lewisguile (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

In Trans–New Guinea, New Guinea is also only a "singular place". It is a proper noun, not a Guinea that is "new". Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

They're not the same kind of prefix, though. The very same page on hyphens and dashes in MOS, just a little bit above that example, gives a relevant example we can use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dual_nationalities

"Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; Franco- is a combining form, not an independent word, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry."

There is a difference between a prefix which is a combining form and a prefix which is just a prefix. "Trans-" expresses a relationship or position relative to the word or term that follows. It's similar to "pre-" (before), "post-" (after), "anti-" (opposed to), etc, in that it's not part of the same term; it just expresses a relationship to that term.

But just as "Franco-" in "Franco-British" is not an independent word (it's a part of "Franco-British"), neither is "Afro-" in "Afro-Puerto Rican". "Afro-" doesn't carry the same prepositional meaning as "pre-" or "post-" or "trans-", etc.

The other example for using en-dashes instead of hyphens relates to adding "-like" and "-esque", which also set up a relationship. They suggest "like x" or "reminiscent of x", but they aren't inherent parts of x itself, merely modifiers to it. "Afro-Puerto Rican" better fits the description under WP:MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES than the one under WP:MOS:PREFIXDASH.

The only reason there's confusion is because Puerto Rico is two words. Swap Puerto Rico for any one-word nationality, and it would be clearer what the convention should be.

Moreover, most conventions aren't just rules that we follow "because"; they're rules that are supposed to help you understand meaning. The purpose of replacing a hyphen with an en-dash in a multi-compound term is, in my view, to make it clear what the appendage is — i.e., the part that isn't naturally part of the word or term.

"Trans–New Guinean" makes it clear that "trans-" has been appended to "New Guinean". But "Afro-" isn't an appendage to "Puerto Rican", because Afro-Puerto Ricans are Puerto Rican (and of African descent). They're one thing; "Afro-" is an inherent quality, not an additive to suggest a positionality to being Puerto Rican.

I'll see if I can find some linguistic experts to support this. Lewisguile (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

"Afro-" is a prefix; it applies not to "Puerto" but "Puerto Rican". That's all that this rule is about. The en dash is correct. SilverLocust 💬 08:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia itself, you only sub an en dash for a hyphen in adjectival compounds. In this way, the en dash serves as a "higher order hyphen". "Afro-Puerto Rican" is a proper name, not an adjective. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Attributive_compounds

Someone on Substack explains the nuancewell: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/91206 They quote the following from The Chicago Manual of Style, sixteenth edition (2010), section 6.80: "The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound... [T]he distinction is most helpful with proper compounds, whose limits are established within the larger context by capitalization. ... [Examples:] the post–World War II years | Chuck Berry–style lyrics". I.e., as a general guideline, the en dash belongs to outside all the capital letters of the phrase/term.

Other MOSes agree with this.

The AP MOS suggests you only replace a hyphen with an en dash when the compound is adjectival — so "pre–Afro-Puerto Rican discussions" would be correct, as "Afro-Puerto Rican" is used an adjective of "discussions" and it's being compounded with the prefix "pre-". See here: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/punctuation/dashes#rewrite_to_avoid_joining_prefixes_with_an_en_dash

The same MOS describes compounds, hyphens and en dashes: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/punctuation/dashes#join_nouns_with_en_dashes_to_show_equal_relationships In this case, it says the en dash shows an equal or opposite relationship (as in "African–Puerto Rican relations"), but that a hyphen creates a compound instead (thus "African-Puerto Rican" would mean the same as "Afro-Puerto Rican", which is an entirely different meaning to "African–Puerto Rican").

This section also explains the difference between a compound noun ("Afro-Puerto Rican") and a coordinate noun ("African–Puerto Rican"). The two things are hyphenated differently because they imply different things.

The Chicago MOS, like the AP and Wilipedia, points out that the en dash is only used when compounding terms as an adjective (i.e., not for compound nouns/names such as "Afro-Puerto Rican"): https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/book/ed18/part2/ch06/psec086.html

Merriam-Webster also suggests you only sub in the en dash only for compound adjectives: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/em-dash-en-dash-how-to-use

Note also that every source used in the article, when it uses the term at all, uses "Afro-Puerto Rican" and not "Afro–Puerto Rican". Lewisguile (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

For the direct quotes:

Attributive compounds

In English, the en dash is usually used instead of a hyphen in compound (phrasal) attributives [i.e., adjectival compounds] in which one or both elements is itself a compound, especially when the compound element is an open compound, meaning it is not itself hyphenated. This manner of usage may include such examples as [note that all the compounds are adjectival, in that they describe something else, such as an era or a pizza]:

• The hospital–nursing home connection (the connection between the hospital and the nursing home, not a home connection between the hospital and nursing)
• A nursing home–home care policy (a policy about the nursing home and home care)
• Pre–Civil War era
• Pulitzer Prize–winning novel
• New York–style pizza
• The non–San Francisco part of the world
• The post–World War II era
  • (Compare post-war era, which, if not fully compounded (postwar), takes a hyphen, not an en dash. The difference is that war is not an open compound, whereas World War II is.)
• Trans–New Guinea languages
• The ex–prime minister
• a long–focal length camera
• water ice–based bedrock
• The pro-conscription–anti-conscription debate
• Public-school–private-school rivalries

The disambiguating value of the en dash in these patterns was illustrated by Strunk and White in The Elements of Style with the following example: When Chattanooga News and Chattanooga Free Press merged, the joint company was inaptly named Chattanooga News-Free Press (using a hyphen), which could be interpreted as meaning that their newspapers were news-free.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Attributive_compounds Lewisguile (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that "The ex–prime minister" in the above list is actually a noun phrase, so serves as a counterexample to your proposed rule that the use of an en dash only applies when the compound is used in an adjectival sense. Bensci54 (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

In that particular case, the compound is an adjective phrase because the "head" ("prime") is an adjective, so it means "former [ex] minister who was first among equals [prime]". You can be a minister without being a prime minister, so the word "prime" is an adjective. This means it technically meets the criteria of being both adjectival ("ex-", "prime) and compounding a compound ("ex"+["prime"+"minister"]).

However, I would debate the usefulness of that particular example, personally, since it's awkward and not as clear as the others. But the rule is stated clearly above it: "In English, the en dash is usually used instead of a hyphen in compound (phrasal) attributives [which pipes to the Adjective phrase page] in which one or both elements is itself a compound, especially when the compound element is an open compound, meaning it is not itself hyphenated." The first part means it should be an adjective phrase; the second part means it should be a compound of a compound ("one or both elements is an open compound").

I don't believe "Afro-" counts as an adjective, since it's a combining form of a noun; I also don't believe Puerto Rican .ounts as a compound in the way the guidance means it, since you can't separate the "Puerto" from the "Rican" as you can with "prime" and "minister".

There are a series of tests you can do to determine if something is an adjective phrase. Putting "Afro-Puerto Rican" through the same "constituency tests" doesn't work See below:

In the following tests, consider the sentence:

Sam ordered a very spicy pizza. [We can try "Sam was an Afro-Puerto Rican."]

1. Coordination tests can be used to confirm if very spicy is an adjective phrase.

   Sam ordered a very spicy (and/but) quite small pizza. (Sam ordered a AP and AP pizza)

   ["Sam was an Afro/African and/but quite tall Puerto Rican" wouldn't make sense, and is ambiguous because it suggests he's African not Afro-Puerto Rican.]This phrase passed the coordination test because it was grammatical, and the adjective phrases were not creating ambiguous meanings when a conjunction (and/but) is used.

2. Ellipsis tests can also be used to confirm if very spicy is an adjective phrase.

   Sam ordered a very spicy pizza, but the pizza Betty ordered was not very spicy.

   ["Sam was an Afro-Puerto Rican, but Betty was not." This one works.]This phrase passed the Ellipsis test, because no ambiguity is created and the adjective phrase could be elided (deleted).

3. A movement test, specifically pseudoclefting, can be used to confirm if very spicy is an adjective phrase.

   Sam ordered a very spicy pizza that was very spicy. ["Sam was a Puerto Rican that was African" doesn't work, because it's ambiguous/unclear. The "Afro-"/"African" part is not standalone; making it standalone changes the meaning and suggests a paradox.]Movement tests not only prove that the constituent moved is a stand-alone constituent, but also proves that this phrase very spicy is an AP if drawn in a syntax tree. Thus, because this adjective phrase could be moved to the right (pseudocleft), it's sufficient proof that it is both a constituent and an adjective phrase.

It definitely fails one of the constituency tests and possibly fails a second, so I think it's incorrect to label "Afro-" an adjective phrase in "Afro-Puerto Rican" (it's all one term, IMO) and thus, it doesn't meet the requirements of the rule. However, I suspect I am alone in caring about this, so I will leave this issue for now and if someone else feels strongly about it, they can respond or resume the discussion later on. Lewisguile (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I remember the list of notable Afro Puerto Rican’s to be much bigger?

What happened? Theultimaterevisionist (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Good question! To tell the truth, I think that maybe some of the names were removed from the list because the subject in question did not have African blood in their veins or maybe because in accordance to Wikipedia policy a reliable verifiable source must be provided and cited. That is what I believe happened. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)