Talk:Proposed political status for Puerto Rico/Archive 1

Archive 1

What happens next

As I understand it there is now a popular mandate that Puerto Rico becomes the 51st State of the USA. What happens next to allow this to happen and what is the timetable for such a change? yorkshiresky (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The timetable is unknown and it is not certain that it will happen. First, the Puerto Rican legislature must formally petition the U.S. Congress for admission. Simultaneously, a constitutional convention would have to be called within Puerto Rico, to draft a state constitution, which would then have to be ratified by another plebiscite. Then Congress must pass, and the president sign, a statehood bill into law, which would admit Puerto Rico into the Union. This is a big step in the statehood direction, but it's a long, slow process - on purpose. polarscribe (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Vote for statehood

In November 2012, Puerto Rico achieved a first clear electoral mandate rejecting the present form of territorial status, and requesting the U.S. Congress to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America. In all earlier referenda, votes for statehood were matched almost equally by votes for remaining an American territory, with a small balance of votes cast for independence. Support for U.S. statehood has risen in each successive popular referendum until a clear majority of 61.2% was attained on November 2012. The most recent referendum process began in October 2011 when Governor Luis Fortuño proposed a bill, following the recommendation of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status to provide for self-determination. The proposed bill set the date of August 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite. The first question on the plebiscite would ask voters whether they wanted to maintain the current commonwealth status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution or whether they preferred a non-territorial option. A second question on the plebiscite would offer three status options: statehood, independence or free association. This bill was brought before the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, then the Senate of Puerto Rico in 2011 to effect the governor's proposal. The bill passed on December 28, 2011. The date was revised such that both steps were voted on in a single ballot on November 6, 2012. As a result of that ballot, 54% of the population voted to change the territorial status quo, with 61.2% of the population voting for statehood as the preferred change from the status quo.

The Plebiscite proposal and guidelines was recommended by the following U.S. Government Reports:

• Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005) - President William J. Clinton.
• Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2007) - President George W. Bush.
• Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (March 2011) - President Barack Obama.
• Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress - Congressional Research Service (CRS Report)
• Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions - Congressional Research Service (CRS Report)

The Democratic Party platform of 2012 says:

As President Obama said when he became the first President to visit Puerto Rico and address its people in 50 years, Boricuas every day help write the American story. Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico. We have made great progress for Puerto Rico over the past four years, including a sharp, historic increase in Medicaid funding for the people of Puerto Rico and fair and equitable inclusion in the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act. Going forward, we will continue working toward fair and equitable participation for Puerto Rico in federal programs. We support increased efforts by the federal government to improve public safety in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, with a particular emphasis on efforts to combat drug trafficking and crime throughout our Caribbean border. In addition, consistent with the task force report, we will continue to work on improving Puerto Rico's economic status by promoting job creation, education, health care, clean energy, and economic development on the Island.

The Republican Party platform of 2008 and 2012 says:

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.

About Romney

Just saying: Romney doesn't actually speak in favor of Puerto Rico becoming a state. Romney states, at best, that if the people of Puerto Rico decide they want(!) to be a state, he isn't going to stop them from wanting to become a state. Actually becoming a state is a whole different ballpark, of course! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.7.98 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney Support Statehood for Puerto Rico and the Republican Party do it also on their Platform! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Republican Party platform of 2008 and 2012 says:

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.

Mitt Romney Supports Puerto Rican Statehood: Mitt Romney Supports Puerto Rican Statehood

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: discussion suspended. I'm withdrawing this until the issues at the RFC are dealt with. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Puerto Rico (proposed state) → Puerto Rican statehood movement – Proposing this move for a very simple reason. Puerto Rican statehood movement will still be a valid topic for an article even if Puerto Rico does become a state. Puerto Rico (proposed state), on the other hand, would logically need retargeting to Puerto Rico if this happens. This will then break a whole bunch of links that discuss Puerto Rico's attempts to be a state. The consistency argument is bunk - unlike all the other proposed states at Category:Proposed states of the United States, this proposal actually has a reasonable chance of happening, rather than being a fringe pipe dream idea like the rest. This is a huge difference, and justifies Puerto Rico getting a different treatment. Note that I moved the page to this article earlier, and another editor reverted me, but the talk page wasn't moved back. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:CRYSTAL. There can be an article about the statehood movement and one about the state proposed itself. The topics can be clearly separated. ChemTerm (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For reference, these were originally separate and there was a clear consensus to combine them into a single article at Talk:Puerto Rico statehood movement. And saying that Puerto Rico has a statehood movement has nothing to do with Crystal balls - it does have a statehood movement, whether they succeed or not, the statehood movement exists now. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The merger is nonsense. A proposed state is not a movement. There is a conceptual difference. I am absolutely in favor of having an article on the movement. Also of removing movement content from the state article. Regarding the so called consensus: It was, AFAICS, a 11 hour consensus by three editors. ChemTerm (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep reverting a consensus merge and have made zero effort to restart discussion. Maybe I should follow your lead and revert your page move and delete this discussion? Ego White Tray (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Another reason not to have two articles is another reason why Puerto Rico statehood is different than any other proposal - Puerto Rico already exists as an undisputed entity with undisputed boundaries. All the other proposed state do require a "proposed state" article since there is no legal entity or recognition to the boundaries proposed. Puerto Rico's boundaries are already set. If it does become a state, we just edit the main article, instead of changing the proposed state article into a state article. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I sent a notice to those who took part in the merge discussion as they had input in what the title of the article should be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• As I said elsewhere, I recommend having everything related to Puerto Rico becoming a state at Puerto Rican statehood movement, to avoid redundancy and because parentheses are used in titles only for disambiguation purposes, which do not apply here.  Sandstein  17:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The topics can be clearly separated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Regardless of the outcome of this move discussion, someone needs to fix the correspondence between the article and the Talk page. Right now the article seems to be at Puerto Rico (proposed state), and Puerto Rican statehood movement is just a redirect. However, the correponding primary Talk page seems to be at Talk:Puerto Rican statehood movement, so there's a mismatch that needs to be fixed by someone who knows how. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I know. I moved the article and talk pages, but the move then got reverted and for some reason the talk page didn't move back. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've merged the talk pages as they ought to be merged regardless if the move succeeds. DrKiernan (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Was that a "cut-and-paste" merge, or a more proper merge that preserves history? Sorry for asking, but my expertise is limited. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a history merge. DrKiernan (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The talk pages can be easily sorted out once the name is decided. But I don't understand most of the arguments above. Why not move to State of Puerto Rico similar to those already at State of Deseret and State of Kanawha and others? The article isn't just about the movement in favor of statehood, or even just about the current proposal. Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism and opposition to the movement

The article does not seem to mention any criticism of the statehood movement. Only supporting views are described. Surely there must be some alternative point of view held by a significant number of people. I suggest that the article would benefit from containing some description of criticism of the movement – or some pointer to somewhere else where the reader could find that information. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Pro-Statehood Bias

Article had and still has an obvious pro-statehood bias. I have removed/clarified some of the most egregious instances but left in the long section which only provides historical instances of support for statehood and the list of pro-statehood organizations. These should be balanced by anti-statehood organizations. Honestly I'm not even sure this page should exist since i'm not sure what it adds beyond what already exists at [Political status of Puerto Rico]. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Governor of Puerto Rico Letter to the President - Official Results of the Puerto Rico Political Status Plebiscite Congressman Pierluisi on the Congress Inform the Congress

Governor of Puerto Rico Letter to the President - Official Results of the 2012 Puerto Rico Political Status Plebiscite Congressman Pierluisi on the Congress oficially informing the results of the 2012 Plebiscite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.68.8 (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

A request for comment related to this article has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico#Request for comment - Puerto Rico statehood article structure. Please comment there. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Supermajority on what?

A Supermajority on what? Who defined a Supermajority on the Democracy? That is a subjective personal opinion!

Who defined a Superminority? Anything < 3.0 % of the votes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.105.227 (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Supermajority, by its very own definition, means 50%+1. Does that answer your question? Let me know and I will gladly respond! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Look like the Washington Post, The New York Times, the Boston Herald agree with you.

Please read the Washington Post Opinion:

A good deal for the District and Puerto Rico

Please read The New York Times Opinion:

Will Puerto Rico Be America’s 51st State?

Please read the Boston Herald Opinion:

Puerto Rican statehood By Boston Herald Editorial Staff

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.55.29 (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's wrong; Ahnoneemoos links to the article, but didn't bother reading it. A supermajority is required majority greater than a simple majority, which is 50% + 1. Perhaps that editor is confused by the difference between a plurality and a majority. In any event, the articles IP lists do not even use the word "supermajority" (or "super" for that matter). -Rrius (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have looked more into it and you are right. The correct term is simple majority. My apologies. I have fixed the article to reflect this. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Keep as a stand alone article. I actually agree in keeping this article standing on its own. Political status of Puerto Rico should be about what Puerto Rico is today while this article should be about the different status being proposed and their implications. I have renamed the article to Proposed political status for Puerto Rico to give it a more proper name. I strongly beleive that my suggestion helps to reach consensus in good faith per WP:WHATISCONSENSUS and WP:GOODFAITH. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:47, 21 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 (talk • contribs) 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:

• WP:BEBOLD, merge the article yourself and fix its redirects, or
• place an WP:RFC, or
• tag it with {{merge to}}.

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)

Reorganization of content

Greetings!

I randomly came across this article as part of a long, late night of me researching the 2016 Presidential election (how I ended up at this article from there, though, I don't quite remember), and upon seeing the state of this article, I decided I wanted to improve the article's appearance.

Here are the things I did:

• Organize the contents of the "Background" section under subheaders
• Remove two paragraphs, one talking about a IRS tax code called Section 936, and another talking about Puerto Rico's current economic situation. I don't see how these two paragraphs were relevant; if I'm mistaken, add them back in and expand upon their relevance
• Add links to other relevant articles, as per the underlinked complaint in the article (which I will be removing)
• Organized content of the lead section of the article, by removing the bullet points (something I don't think should ever be present in a lead section) and moving a paragraph from the "Background" section up to the lead (as that paragraph conveniently gave a nice summary; what it was doing in the Background section, I do not know)

There is still a lot of work to be done for this article. (see Writing better articles) References should be added or verified. There is information found on a number of other Wikipedia articles that could be added here (but don't blindly copy it over; integrate only what is most relevant to this specific article into its text). There perhaps could be more information added from sources not yet found by this encyclopedia. I suggest skimming through the archives of this talk page, as it may help future editors (perhaps you, dear reader) with determining the thoughts of previous editors, the intent and topic of this article, and so on.

All I simply did was rearrange the contents of the article, remove a few things, and add a bunch of links. If someone does have issues with my edits, please come talk to me on my talk page. JaykeBird (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually came back and made a few adjustments and improvements. Specifically, I edited the sections Prior to Jones Act and Jones Act and the 1940s, by adding, editing, and removing bits and pieces of information, adding more links to other articles, and finding and adding a few references (that I grabbed from Gag Law (Puerto Rico) and List of Governors of Puerto Rico).

Additionally, I removed a paragraph talking about the sugar economy in Puerto Rico that changed as a result of the Foraker Act. Again, if an editor can show how this is relevant to the article itself, they can add it back in with the relevant connection added.

Even with this additional work, there's still more to be done. I've cleaned this article quite a bit, but my work alone won't make it good. If other editors have more information and references to add, please, by all means, do so. As always, you can reach me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. JaykeBird (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Free association

The description to this in this article is counterintuitive. Per Resolution 1514 (XV) free association and independence are fundamentally different, the degree of autonomy is directly tied to the specifications of the compact and, hence, not really independence. This is something that has been pointed by the actual independence movement for several years. I am modifying the prose accordingly. 166.172.185.214 (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)