Wikipedia

Talk:Independence movement in Puerto Rico/Archive 1

< Talk:Independence movement in Puerto Rico
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Hammersbach in topic Manifest Destiny
Archive 1

Removal of merge notice

I'm removing the merge notice because the Puerto Rican Independence movement article and the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party article, even though related are not the same and are two seperate articles. The Puerto Rican Nationalist Party is a political party which believes in the islands independence even if it means an armed revolution. The Puerto Rican Indepedence movement covers the subject of various independence groups from the 1860's (before the founding of the Nationalist Party) to the present and covers other political parties that are pro-independence such as the Puerto Rican Independence Party and the Puerto Rican Socialist Party among others, which believe in gaining the islands independence through the electoral process. Tony the Marine 05:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • In conclusion, The Nationalist Party is a group within the Puerto Rican independence movement and an independent subject itself, while the Puerto Rican independence movement is composed of various political parties and an independent subject itself. Tony the Marine 18:47, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

URGENT MATTER

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What the hell is this?!?!? the main independence movement article redirects from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_statehood I'm starting to believe that wikipedia is turning out to be a fraud, not an encyclopedia. THE ONLY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE TWO PARTIES IS A CONTRARY ONE. By no means an article about independence, and all the "independentistas". FIX THIS MATTER URGENTLY, OTHERWISE I'LL TAKE ACTION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puerto.rico (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Plan De Ponce

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone expand on the Plan de Ponce, not much available on the internet about these propositions for independence from Spain with alliance before the Treaty of Paris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.19.166 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Misnomer

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For some reason Puerto Rican statehood redirects to here. Wouldn't statehood in this case refer to movements to make it a US state? If so, where is the artice discussing US statehood with Puerto Rico?Hihellowhatsup 02:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you think education was optional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.233.241 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Status of Puerto Rico

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I believe it would be a good idea to rename this from Puerto Rican independence movement to Status of Puerto Rico, merge in all of Puerto Rican status referendums, and merge in portions of Politics of Puerto Rico. There are several reasons for this suggestion:

  1. Puerto Ricans are split on their support for independence versus support for statehood, so focusing on independence is discussing only half the issue. (see WP:POVFORK)
  2. It would parallel existing article titles Political status of Taiwan, Kosovo status process, and Legal status of Hawaii.
  3. It makes it comfortable for the article to cover all relevant historical status changes (whether they be away, towards, or orthogonal to independence or statehood)

--98.206.221.93 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes little sense, there has been a independence movement since the 19th century, since the times of the Spanish colonial government, more than a century before the first status referendum was held, that is the difference between this and other status movements. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the guy above. The independence movement in Puerto Rico has over 140 years; its a long struggle with its own history, writtings, and figures. Its a different intellectual movement; there isnt an intellectual pro-statehood movement. In fact, there isnt even a "statehood movement"; its just a bunch of people that privately believe in statehood.---Me July 21 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.157.66 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Err, no. There has been a statehood movement, it's just doesn't have a large documented history as the independence movement. You'd be surprised how many issues and events affected both the independence and statehood ideologies. The independence movement should have a stand alone article, though a broad article on the Status of Puerto Rico seems a good idea to summarize its history and all ideologies. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 18:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This does exist now, it's Political status of Puerto Rico. Although Status of Puerto Rico should probably be a redirect... Zaldax (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias in favor of Independence Movement -- POV template added

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

This entire article appears to be subtly biased in favor of the independence movement; I strongly recommend going through and editing it for neutrality. In the meantime, I've added the POV template to the article. Zaldax (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a pretty strong accusation the one you are making. However, it is not sustantiated. Provide actual instances of where in the article this alleged subtle bias exists. The "entire article appears to be" is not a valid instance. In the meantime, I've removed the POV template from the article. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I probably should have done that in the first place; here's a list below.
  • "Events under US colonial rule -- An argument can be made that Puerto Rico was never a US "colony." Rather, it was a territory acquired from Spain, similar to how California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico were acquired from Mexico. However, no one has termed those locations colonies, and I think it is generally agreed that they were not. Territory =/= colony.
  • "United States 'Manifest Destiny' " "The U.S. government supported all these economic exploits, and provided military "persuasion" whenever necessary. Openly and proudly, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt declared that “It is manifest destiny for a nation to own the islands which border its shores,”[25] and that if “any South American country misbehaves it should be spanked.”[26]" "exploits" isn't exactly a word without connotations, and "military 'persuasion' " obviously biased.
  • "Formation of the Nationalist Party" "Throughout the 20th century the Puerto Rican independence movement, and the accelerated growth of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, were a direct result of this U.S. colonial regime." Original research?
  • "After the assassination of police colonel Francis Riggs in San Juan as an indirect result of the Rio Piedras massacre, which involved the police and students of the University of Puerto Rico, U.S. Senator Millard Tydings presented a legislation proposal to grant independence to Puerto Rico with unfavorable economic conditions which in the long run would leave the island in ruins. " Editorializing once again.
  • "Events under commonwealth status" "The new Commonwealth status forced a new set of initiatives from the Puerto Rican independence movement. On October 30, 1950, with the new autonomist Commonwealth status about to go into effect, multiple Nationalist uprisings occurred, in an effort to focus world attention on the colonial dilemma in Puerto Rico." Colonial dilemma is hardly a neutral phrase. Also, the nearby image caption is "US troops invade the town of Jayuya on October 30th, 1950." Use of the word "invade" implies that the author believes the US soldiers were operating on foreign soil...
  • "Current Approaches" "Many analysts view this process as futile, since the Foraker Act (Pub.L. 64-368, 39 Stat. 951, enacted March 2, 1917), and the Jones–Shafroth Act (Pub.L. 56-191, 31 Stat. 77, enacted April 12, 1900), vest the U.S. Congress with complete authority and veto power over any legislation or referendum initiated by Puerto Rico.[39][40]" Those italics are already in the article for emphasis...

The entire tone of this article is subtly worded in a way which conveys sympathy with the independence movement. These examples alone, in my opinion, justify the readdition of the POV template. I've re-added it for now, but since I didn't post an argument before I don't know if it will be disputed or not. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I agree that there are certain terms which may be deemed as POV and can be edited to confirm with the established policy. However, some of your acertions seem a little biased. As you know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where we strive to provide articles based on the truth with proper references, regardless if editors are pro-Puerto Rican independence or pro-USA.

1. Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony and when invaded by the United States, it already was a nation as defined with it's own traditions, culture, citizenship, and so on. Puerto Rico at the time can not be compared with the wild territories in the mainland where the gun was the law of the land.

2. In the United States "Manifest Destiny", there are terms which should be rephrased.

3. Millard Tydings presented a legislation proposal to grant independence to Puerto Rico with unfavorable economic conditions which in the long run would leave the island in ruins. This is a fact and the source is a repected historian.

4. Events under commonwealth status - could use some rephrasing.

5. The "Foraker Act (Pub.L. 64-368, 39 Stat. 951, enacted March 2, 1917), and the Jones–Shafroth Act (Pub.L. 56-191, 31 Stat. 77" were acts or laws imposed upon the people of Puerto Rico since the people of Puerto Rico had no say in the issues (sounds like a colony without any representation, doesn't it?)

Yes, rehrasing is required and then the template should be removed. It seems very strange that a person who has been in Wikipedia for only two days seems to know his way around Wikipedia better them some users who have been here for years. I hope that you do not have multiple acounts. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm just a long-time lurker who got tired of anonymous ip editing. Anyway, I'll respond to the above shortly. You're correct in that this article can be easily fixed, though. Zaldax (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hummm,,, perhaphs as a way of completing your thought above you wouldn't mind sharing the ip address you used to edit from so we get to know each other a bit? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
And as for the article itself, it seems to me that a few inline CN tags and maybe an OR tag would suffice. I don't see a need to condemn the entire article when it is presented in a professional and encyclopedic manner. With the tags in their place, we give other editors a chance to address precisely to those issues that may seems dubious or, in your allegation, pov. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
RESPONSE:
Zaldax states above that he is "just a long-time lurker", yet in THIS edit Zaldax stated "as you can see, I'm new here." There is a contradiction here. I consider this to be a disengenuous statement since clearly his Zaldax name may have been new but not his person -- and what he was attempting to convey, given the context where this was written, was that his person, and not his name, was what was new. This user cannot be claiming, on one hand, to be "new here" but claiming, on the other hand, that he is "a long-time lurker". He is either new or he is not; he is a long-timer or he is not. I can say he is a long timer who is trying to make folks believe he is new. Not very nice and, hey, against policy.
In any event, let's get on with the business of improving the encyclopedia: I am addressing the issues brought up and removing the overdone POV tag.
  • Events under US colonial rule -- An argument can be made that Puerto Rico was never a US "colony."
  • No, that argument cannot be made. Go to HERE
  • "United States 'Manifest Destiny'" - "exploits" isn't exactly a word without connotations, and "military 'persuasion' " obviously biased.
  • The objectioner does not state which words he would like to see there in their place, and I personally don't see anything wrong with the current words/wording. As such, these stay as they are due to failure to answer/to challenge.
  • "Formation of the Nationalist Party" - "...were a direct result of this U.S. colonial regime." Original research?
  • This paragrapgh is a summary introduction to the statements in the section and serves to bind the previous section with this one for readability and smoothness of flow. The section in question deals with events responding to the American colonial regime, such as the creation, growth and activities of the Nationalist Party. The section both expands on the statements in the summary introduction and support it via citations. As such the material is not OR.
  • "...Senator Millard Tydings presented a legislation proposal to grant independence to Puerto Rico with unfavorable economic conditions which in the long run would leave the island in ruins."
  • A cn tag is appropriate here.
  • "Events under commonwealth status" - "...in an effort to focus world attention on the colonial dilemma in Puerto Rico." Colonial dilemma is hardly a neutral phrase.
  • This could be replaced with "...in an effort to focus world attention on the Movement's dissatisfaction with the new commonwealth status."
  • "Events under commonwealth status" - Image caption "invade" implies that the author believes the US soldiers were operating on foreign soil...
  • Has already been modified by another editor into "occupies".
  • "Current Approaches" - Those italics are already in the article for emphasis.
  • This is not a verbatim quote (given absence of quotation marks), so nothing prevents the WP editor from introducing italics for emphasis in oreder to help get some point across to the reader. I do not see any reason to modify the format and/or contents here.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Photo caption

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The caption under the military photo now reads "U.S. troops occupy" rather than "U.S. troops invade."

The word "invade" is defined in the Random House College Dictionary, 9th Ed. as "to enter forcefully; to enter and affect injuriously; to penetrate, to attack." Merriam Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed., 2007, defines "invade" as "to encroach upon; to spread over or into; to affect injuriously; to penetrate, raid, assault."

On October 30, 1950, the town of Jayuya was (choose your own word here) by hundreds of soldiers, strafed by machine guns, and bombed by U.S. war planes. Doors were kicked open and dozens of Jayuya residents were arrested. All of these actions are consistent with the dictionary definition of the word "invade." Notwithstanding, for the sake of editorial consensus, I substituted the word "occupy."

Later today, if time permits, I will respond to some other points that were recently raised.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree - template should be removed

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The above discussion by Mercy11 was comprehensive, well-reasoned, and strongly supported and referenced by other articles in Wikipedia. An excellent example of this is Mercy11 ’s reference HERE with respect to the overall context of Puerto Rico – U.S. relations, from 1898 onward.

This historical context is not a “bias,” it is a documented set of facts. If these facts are unpleasant, it does not alter their status as facts. Accordingly a straightforward, unblinking presentation of the historical record is not an instance of “bias.” It is a statement of fact.

Though the reasoning offered by Mercy11 was fully dispositive of all major points (except for one point -- Zaldax’s claim to "being new here” while simultaneously being a "long-time lurker"), I think a few other points are worth noting.

  • On the issue of Puerto Rico’s colonial history, Mercy11’s citation was very helpful HERE. To that I would add the historical (and well-documented) facts surrounding the Charter of Autonomy which Puerto Rico received from Spain in 1897.
After four hundred years of colonial domination under the Spanish Empire, Puerto Rico finally received its sovereignty in 1897 through a Carta de Autonomía (Charter of Autonomy). This Charter of Autonomy was signed by Spanish Prime Minister Práxedes Mateo Sagasta and ratified by the Spanish Cortes.
Despite this, just a few months later, the United States claimed ownership of the island as part of the Treaty of Paris (1898) which concluded the Spanish-American War. This gave rise to the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party which maintained that, as a matter of international law, the Treaty of Paris could not empower the Spanish to "give" what was no longer theirs.
This is not “original research,” it is documented historical fact. The following volumes all discuss this:
Manuel Maldonado Denis; Puerto Rico: A Socio-Historic Interpretation; Random House; 1972
Federico Ribes Tovar; Albizu Campos: Puerto Rican Revolutionary; Plus Ultra Publishers, 1971
Thomas Aitken, Jr.; Luis Munoz Marin: Poet in the Fortress; Signet Books / New American Library, 1965
A.W. Maldonado; Luis Munoz Marin: Puerto Rico’s Democratic Revolution; University of Puerto Rico Editorial Publishers, 2006
Cesar Ayala; American Sugar Kingdom: The Plantation Economy of the Spanish Caribbean 1898-1934; University of North Carolina Press, 1999
Sidney W. Mintz; Worker in the Cane: A Puerto Rican Life History; Yale University Press, 1960

The discussion of Puerto Rico’s Charter of Autonomy appears in many other articles in Wikipedia, and most or all of the above-cited sources are referenced in those articles. So none of this is “original research."

For all the above reasons, and for the reasons asserted by Tony the Marine and Mercy11, I agree that the NPOV template should be removed.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


The level of arrogance and rudeness I've seen here is stunning. Not only are you yourselves clearly displaying a bias by refusing to acknowledge the very clear statements that I have made here regarding bias, but you also are assuming that I am being disingenuous, simply because I have taken my time to familiarize myself with WP policy, while also acknowledging the fact that I might still get things wrong. Something that some of you, by the way, have evidently failed to do.

And by the way, in the past, I've edited from several ips; HOME, WORK, SCHOOL, etc. So sorry, but I will not be providing you with that information, as I don't have it. Next time, I suggest you try and follow WP policy, before you drive editors you yourself admit are quite familiar with this encyclopedia away. With regards to this article, I suggested it be revised for neutrality, which is not to be confused with supporting a pro-Independence view and a pro-US view equally. After looking at the revisions made by others, and after the removal of the loaded-term of "invasion" (which, by the way, is rendered incorrect simply by the fact that the main US "invasion force" was comprised of the PUERTO RICO NATIONAL GUARD), I believe the article is now mostly at the point where the template could be removed. So if some of you would stop attacking me simply for making a contribution, I would appreciate it, thanks. Oh, and please go and look at my contributions if you think I'm so controversial. Also, a quick glance at all three of your user pages indicates personal connections to Puerto Rico and/or the Puerto Rican independence movement, of which I have none whatsoever. Please don't allow your personal feelings to get in the way of improving this article. In any case, I'm done here; the article has been removed from my watchlist, and I have no further interest in improving this, or any Puerto Rico-related articles, thanks to the reception I have received here. Regards, Zaldax (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Charter of Autonomy

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a Charter of Autonomy section which clarifies the sovereignty status of Puerto Rico in 1897-98, when it received its constitutional autonomy from Spain. This grant of autonomy from Spain, which was signed by the prime minister of Spain and ratified by the Spanish Cortes, establishes the sovereign position of Puerto Rico in 1898, as a matter of international law. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Too many ley people

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Infobox includes more than 20 key people, including the President of the United States, which is a position and a changing person, with each administration likely having different ideas. While the POTUS position might be a stakeholder in the issue of Puerto Rican independence, such a broad brush approach does not really help readers understand the issues. It would be better to identify, say, 10 people in the Puerto Rican community who have really been leaders of the independence movement, rather than everyone who might have touched the topic.Parkwells (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the list appears rather long. I would understand why others may consider the POTUS a key person. I don't think the fact that the POTUS is a changing person and a position is relevant here. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Duplication between sections

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Content is duplicated word for word in "Spanish Charter for Autonomy" and "US Manifest Destiny"- material about Charles Allen and ownership in 1930 of sugar plantation lands. I have made some corrections (to both) in view of the cited June 1915 article in the NYTimes, noting that Allen became pres. of American Sugar in 1913 and resigned in June 1915. I think it's inaccurate to say he personally was a major landowner of sugar plantations in 1930 unless there is another source for that.Parkwells (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing for concision/but needs context

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All of the armed actions of various revolts are discussed in full-length articles on these topics, so I have edited to try to provide more overview. What these sections need is not just recounting of actions but who was involved? An overview is needed of the different movements - Were the leaders landowners or what class did they belong to, (after the 16th c. Taino rebellions) were they men of mostly Spanish descent, wre they educated? Some context would be a useful direction for expansion of the article and there are academic books on this topic to provide more information.Parkwells (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The connection between manifest destiny and the annexation of Puerto Rico has been made in reliable sources. Therefore, WP:SYNTHNOT applies in this case, and the fact that the most convenient source for the relevant quote from TR does not mention Puerto Rico by name does not make the link false, or the quote unuseful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Independence movement in Puerto Rico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The connection between manifest destiny and the annexation of Puerto Rico has been made in reliable sources. Therefore, WP:SYNTHNOT applies in this case, and the fact that the most convenient source for the relevant quote from TR does not mention Puerto Rico by name does not make the link false, or the quote unuseful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Teddy did not make the quote to which you are attributing to him, therefore the quote is highly unuseful. Additionally, could you please provide the "reliable sources" that make the "connection between manifest destiny and the annexation of Puerto Rico"? Hammersbach (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independence_movement_in_Puerto_Rico/Archive_1&oldid=1140546933"