Talk:Puerto Rico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Puerto Rico article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Puerto Rico has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
Puerto Rico is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Sections
  • Main articles
  • Other issues
  • Resolve the controversy regarding the Demographics section
  • Provide further references, inline citations and notes
Archives

Controversial issues
Trivia
Useful information
Archive

Contents

[edit] Geography

Why is the size of Puerto Rico compared to US states such as Connecticut? Wouldn't a comparison to nearby islands make more sense? There is no reason to assume that every reader of the English articles of Wikipedia knows the general size of US states; indeed, it changes the perspective of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.154.29 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it would make more sense to compare the main island with Hispaniola and Jamaica seeing that they are a lot more easier to compare in a geographical map, but when Joel removed it under that argument it was quickly restored back, unfortunatelly as is the case with many other issues in this page most edits are politically based. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As HQ said above I believe that a geographical comparison with the Greater Antilles is more appropiate than with a US state. However, some people believe otherwise. A quick look in any book will reveal comparisons with the Greater Antilles. Joelito (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. A comparison with Connecticut would be appropriate if this was a text aimed solely for people from the US. Although I'm sure that the majority of the people who read this could be from the US, I don't think that's the aim or purpose of this article. --Madgirl 15 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puerto Rico - Name

In an article for Primera Hora, Jesús Omar Rivera indicates that the island was named Puerto Rico by Juan Ponce de León after finding gold in the bay of San Juan. Should I wrestle that into the article's history section? ~RayLast «Talk!» 17:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should go for it. I wanted to find another source to back this up and did. See: http://fcit.usf.edu/Florida/lessons/de_leon/de_leon1.htm It's probably aimed at younger students but it's from a resource provided by a University so I think it's valid. --Madgirl 15 (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OTEC near Punta Tuna

There's a cool fact about Puerto Rico that might be possible to place somewhere in the Geography section. Puerto Rico has one of the most ideal locations for a method for generating electricity/renewable energy called Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) located at less than 2 miles from the shore of Punta Tuna in Maunabo. See Renewable Energy from the Deep Ocean. ~RayLast «Talk!» 00:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, a single plant can produce 800 million KW in electric output, it should be mentioned in geography, we already mention the trench but there isn't much oceanic information outside of that. I remember hearing that Puerto Rico is the only place in the world where fluorescent water can be observed throughout the year but I have no idea where to find a reliable source for that. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If by "fluorescent" water you mean bioluminescent water, it can be seen on moonless nights at Mosquito Bay in Vieques, the Punta Las Cabezas Lagoon in Fajardo and the Phosphorescent Bay in the La Parguera area of Lajas, the latter being the most polluted and less luminiescent of the three.Pr4ever (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Fluorecent, bioluminicent, radioactive... they all glow, the only difference is that "bioluminicent" has a "biological" factor behind it, anyway I was thinking about "Flourecent bay" which is a term that I have heard in the past. However, the relevant aspect is that Puerto Rico may be the only place in the world where this can be observed the entire year. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA

How far are we from having an FA quality for this one? ~RayLast «Talk!» 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Far. Without a true culture section this will never have a chance at FAC. Also some sections need copyediting and better sources (preferably from books) are required. Joelito (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any example of an article from some country or territory that has been featured that we can use to beef this thing up once and for all? ~RayLast «Talk!» 01:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Turkey, among others. Joelito (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Joel, we need to create a culture section. As far as references go I added a few to "Geography" last week which was a section tagged with [citation needed] templates, the sports section needs some as well. Now the main problem will be keeping the article free of PNP/PIP/PPD pov, when this article is unprotected those appear on a daily basis, a "stable" version must be constructed and restored when this happens. Now, at this moment my focus is on Puerto Rican Amazon, but if all of us are available to heavily edit the article in summer perhaps we can start a FA push in July and try to have it on the main page by November 19, I have faith that if we all cooperate this can be done as was the case with Ramón Emeterio Betances last year. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I know I've been pretty much out of Wikipedia these past couple of months, focusing more on the gigantic work needed in Wikisource. But if we're going for an FA drive for this article, count me in. Definitely. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how is this normally done? I guess the idea would be to turn the to-do list into a team-workable format. Do we make a list of all the sections and have people sign up as volunteers for fixing a specific section? I've found it always a lot easier to concentrate being responsible for only one section at a time, knowing that someone else will be in charge of the rest. Also we could have a list of specific suggestions such as: Eliminate the Migration to the United States section. It would be nice to lock only a section of the article (Politics!) or clean it up so heavily that it would only contain the current government/political structure and not any news-like information. How was your plan for pushing the Ramón Emeterio Betances to FA? ~RayLast «Talk!» 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea to chop it up. It also makes the whole process less stressful. Just assign me an area and I'll bring the broom! Qb | your 2 cents 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
For the Culture section problem, what do you suggest? should we first create a good Culture of Puerto Rico article and then include an extract in the main Puerto Rico article or should we build on the Puerto Rico article and then drain into the specific Culture article? I have included the sections I believe should be found in a "Culture" article in Talk:Culture of Puerto Rico. With the help of the "Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña" we should be able to get somwhere. ~RayLast «Talk!» 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think thats a great idea to start there. We can't very well have a "For more information see X" link without having what it links to be up to par with at least GA status. That would ease up our burden of creating something for a culture section. Qb | your 2 cents 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I love the idea of divinding work, that would speed up the process since every user would be focusing on their part. Ramón Emeterio Betances was done in steps, Demf did a lot of research and wrote a very solid structure, but for some reason people kept failing the article for some rather minor issues, Demf stopped working on the article for some time and was notably frustrated (who wouldn't be?). I nominated the article to WP:GAC a few months later and Eddie joined, the article passed following this collaboration and was taken to WP:PR, but that was pointless so we took it to WP:FA and attended the matters there. Raising an article to featured status its about having neutral parties reviewing it, those ussually find issues that to the user working on the article might not be troubling. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Be advised that we have an excellent peer reviewer for FAs, Joelito. We should let him review it prior to FAC. It's not a guarantee that the article will then be perfect, but he has much experience with featured articles from working on FAR. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Puerto Ricans are the best type of hispanics. They rock!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.103.53 (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Migration to the United States section

I question the academic validity of some of the sources utilized for this section. Further, it seems like some generalizations are made that are taking things a step too far... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.34.175 (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Then be bold and fix them... or at the very least provide examples of the dubious sources and where these generalizations occur. This article will not, and I think I can write ever, be migrated to a footnote within the US main article. Qb | your 2 cents 11:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
edit: ha! I read that wrong... I read the header as that this whole article should be migrated to the US article. My bad. Qb | your 2 cents 11:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Locked Status?

I see this article is locked, but no information ("lock" icon, text, banner header on this Talk page) describing the nature of the lock (temporary, permanent), who controls the lock, when it is coming off, who can edit while locked, etc.

And this is especially a problem as it is not very written -- prose-wise, organization-wise -- and definitely needs some improvement.

[edit] IPA Pronunciations -- English vs. Spanish

Being the English language version of Wikipedia, it's normal to have the standard English pronunciation of a subject indicated, as well as a relevant foreign-language pronunciation.

The article currently only has a Spanish language pronunciation indicated.

As the article is locked, I am submitting this to the Wikipedia Lock Demigods for implementation:


(in U.S. English, IPA: [ˈpɔɹdʌ ˌɹikoʊ ] or [ˈpweɹtoʊ ˌɹikoʊ], in Spanish [ˌpwertoˈriko]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.153.101 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA push, step 1 - dividing the work

Well people summer is here and we should take advantage of the ammount of free time that some of us will have. The first logic step is to assign sections to each user so we can individually improve each one, that should make the work easier since it will be parallel. Personally I prefer the "Geography" section, I have sourced and worked with this one before and would like to avoid politics as much as possible. Anyone else interested in working with a particular section? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

History for me. Joelito (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to work on looking for references. --Agüeybaná 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations decolonization committee resolution (2008) on Puerto Rico

On June 9th 2008 the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization adopts text calling on United States to expedite self-determination process for Puerto Rico, it also called upon a process that would allow Puerto Ricans to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. UN official website link: [1] .--vertical (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)