Talk:Afro–Puerto Ricans/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

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.

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?

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.

7) Reference 32 has no retrieved date.

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afro–Puerto_Ricans/Archive_1&oldid=1140545664"