 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
.svg){kind=small} |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 | On 1 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Statehood movement in Puerto Rico to Puerto Rico statehood movement. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Merge to Puerto Rico (proposed state)
- The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: {{{result}}} ~~~~
The article Puerto Rico (proposed state) topically overlaps with Puerto Rico statehood movement and also partially with Political status of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012. There's a lot of duplicated text. I propose that all detailed text related to the possibility of the territory becoming a U.S. state should be consolidated into this article. Sandstein 11:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Done
Ego White Tray (
talk) 22:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done and not likely to be done — Reverted per
WP:NOTADEMOCRACY,
WP:VOTE, and
WP:IAR. Discussion held at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico. Resolution was:
- Puerto Rican statehood movement remains as a stand alone article. This is supported by Puerto Rico independence movement, Puerto Rico free association movement, and [1].
-
Puerto Rico (proposed state) becomes
Proposed political status for Puerto Rico which will detail all the different political status proposed for Puerto Rico and their implications (not only statehood which was its sole content at the time of this discussion). Essentially it will be the parent article for
Puerto Rican statehood movement,
Puerto Rico independence movement, and
Puerto Rico free association movement with an overview, history, and sections detailing each movement and their implications. The sections detailing the movements should use
{{ main}}. - Political status of Puerto Rico remains as a stand alone article about what Puerto Rico is today.
- — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 23:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Merge. This is actually a good idea, as this is different from previous attempts. Ericl ( talk) 15:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Merge. I agree the information should be consolidated - but I think it should actually be consolidated into the Puerto Rico (proposed state) page because there has now been a change in this political issue - we're no longer talking about a political idea but a substantive election and proposal that will be debated and will become part of the American national political discourse for the next few years (if we go by how long Hawaii and Alaska took to become a state once they voted for it). I think it's crucial to graduate the discussion to reflect what has changed in fact and that presenting the page as one focused on the proposal to move the territory into full statehood would provide a much cleaner and accurate resource for those using Wikipedia for information on the subject. There should be clarity that it's no longer a political 'movement' alone but that a proposal has now begun to materialize, information related to the statehood movement itself is now mainly historical: the background that should flesh out a Puerto Rico (proposed state) page.-- Polisci101 ( talk) 21:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Merge. I also feel that the info should be merged into the article Puerto Rico (proposed state) with over 60% of the population it is at an all time high. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree that Puerto Rican statehood movement is the better title for the topic. Puerto Rico (proposed state) sounds like a disambiguation title. Wikipedia uses parenthetical disambiguators only to distinguish between different topics that share the same name. Here, the topic is not Puerto Rico as it would be as a state (if it ever becomes a state, that article will still be Puerto Rico), but the political movement and process leading to statehood. Sandstein 08:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as a stand alone article. Wow, this clearly was a really bad decision. This article should stand on its own since it explains the political stand from a very specific and narrow point of view. That was not consensus, I'm reverting it back per WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, WP:VOTE, and WP:IAR — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- See Puerto Rico independence movement as well. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just created Puerto Rico free association movement too. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
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) 19:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Roll Call Report
Puerto Rico People Vote for Change -- and Statehood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.82.115 ( talk) 05:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been trying unsuccessfully to find out what is/are the reason(s) for the delay in having the people of Puerto Rico vote on another referendum regarding the status of Puerto Rico. I totally agree that the wording of the November 6, 2012 referendum disqualifies it as an accurate representation of the desires of the Puerto Rican people on the subject, and I was very surprised to learn that another referendum regarding Puerto Rico's status was not on the November 2014 ballot, especially since the United States said it would pay for the next such referendum in a bill that Pres. Obama signed into law on January 17, 2014.
So far this is the only article I've found that makes any mention of the U.S. government's response to Puerto Rico's December 11, 2012 request for statehood. Ironically, despite the section regarding merging this article with an article titled Puerto Rico (proposed state) that makes up the bulk of this talk page, Puerto Rico (proposed state) redirects to Proposed political status for Puerto Rico, and in the list of status options near the beginning of that article, the statehood option links to this article.
HankW512 ( talk) 00:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps should we harmonize titles like:
-- Dereckson ( talk) 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The page has lengthy sections of groups and individuals that support statehood. Yet there is no mention of those opposed. Considering previous vote results, I have to believe there is significant opposition to statehood. What is the view of these people? 68.46.82.132 ( talk) 02:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- A different article covers that: Independence movement in Puerto Rico and it's linked within this article in the 2012 statehood vote section.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 23:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Merge section from 51st state#Puerto Rico
I'm suggesting over at Talk:51st state that the Puerto Rico sections there be moved into this article, as there should be nothing there that doesn't belong here; this article should be simultaneously about the statehood movement in Puerto Rico and the parallel movement in US. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Statehood movement in the District of Columbia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor removed the entire "mainland support" section which included referenced discussion on an executive order concerning "determination of Puerto Rico's ultimate status"; the positions of the two major U.S. parties on self-determination; and the current president's position on self-determination or statehood in which he stated "statehood would be the most effective means". This removal makes no sense to me. ☆ Bri ( talk) 00:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Bri, Did you not read the exhaustive list of reasons why none of that material belonged there left in the edit summaries? I am not sure why it may make no sense to you if you read both those edit summaries and their associated material. Like me, you too are a longtime editor, so you have surely read WP:SYNTH and understand its meaning. Yes, all that material was referenced; I made sure to go thru the painstaking process of check each and every work of each and every cite. So, no, I had no quarrel with the cites, and they all exactly what the quoted text in the article stated. The problem is that the editor(s) who added that material were claiming with each quote that those positions (by US parties, US presidents, etc.) proved support for PR statehood when the only support they proved was support for the self-determination of the political status of PR by Puerto Ricans. Said simply, the text there stated that if, for example, Puerto Ricans chose to become an independent nation (another manifestation of self-determination just like statehood) then those US political parties, US presidents, etc., would also support independence. Certainly, a US president who is claimed to be supporting statehood could not possibly also be supporting --just the opposite-- independence at the same time, right?. Otherwise, this would be analogous to supporting, say, sending American troops to Ukraine and also supporting not sending them, or supporting the Cuban embargo and also not supporting it. That is the claims there were not claims for statehood but statements of support for self-determiniation. Statehood (like independence) can't take place until self-determination has taken place. And self determination is all that entire section was about, none of it was manifesting exclusive support for statehood.
- As you can see, I didn't revert your revert; but you shouldn't take that to mean I am not convinced, after all, that I should had removed the material. No, not at all. You should, instead, take that to mean I am not looking for an edit war. That's all.
Mercy11 (
talk) 03:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's fine if you edit the text so the presentation matches the sources. E.g. a politician or a party supporting self-determination. My objection was to your eliminating the section in its entirety. ☆
Bri (
talk) 05:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Bri, I would had been just as concerned about it as you are/were if I had seen an editor remove an entire section, but as I went down each that section, item by item, I reached the end of the section and found all of the items there were invalid for some valid reason. At that point I faced a choice, either (a) leave the section header only and tag with "This section is empty, needs attention" or something similar, or (b) to remove the section altogether.
- The problem with your suggestion ("edit the text so the presentation matches the sources, e.g., a politician or a party supporting self-determination [said such and such...]") is that then we aren't adding content on the mainland support for statehood, which is the subject of the article, but on mainland support for self-determination, and the article isn't about self determination. Trust me, I'd like to accommodate that sort of stuff but self-determination is irrelevant to the article unless we split the article and spun off a new article on "Puerto Rico self-determination", and we put all of that section's info there. I would have no objection to that as it would result in 2 articles whose contents are a true reflection of their article names. What do you think? Mercy11 ( talk) 22:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's fine if you edit the text so the presentation matches the sources. E.g. a politician or a party supporting self-determination. My objection was to your eliminating the section in its entirety. ☆
Bri (
talk) 05:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Removing George H. W. Bush from "Support outside Puerto Rico"
@ Mercy11: Regarding this edit, it is relevant and notable that a former president of the United States has a position on the issue, even if he is now dead. In fact, he was dead when it was added to the article. Will this section be empty after all of these people have died? Wikipedia contains histories, not just present-day politics.
If anything, your edits should have made clear that Bush is dead and better outlined the chronology of support. For example, see WP:PRESERVE. Thanks. Wracking 💬 06:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Stop standing on a soapbox, it's not relevant: Once he was no longer president, he became a private citizen, so his official "position" became as good as John Doe's. And if he was dead when the info was added in, it only proves there are 2 of you making poor editorial judgement. You aren't even using correct English: a dead president isn't called a "former president" but a late president. IAE, if having him listed there turns you on, go ahead knock yourself out; no need to whine this much. Oh, and don't waste your effort replying -- it will be deleted unread. Mercy11 ( talk) 00:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
You have a wiki for the Democrats but not the Republicans 🤔🤔🤔, shame 24.190.30.30 ( talk) 03:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Declancryan (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lefeverk ( talk) 17:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- C-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Puerto Rico articles
- Top-importance Puerto Rico articles
- C-Class Puerto Rico articles of Top-importance
- C-Class politics articles
- Top-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Top-importance sociology articles
- C-Class social movements task force articles
- Social movements task force articles
| The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
| On 1 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Statehood movement in Puerto Rico to Puerto Rico statehood movement. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Merge to Puerto Rico (proposed state)
- The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: {{{result}}} ~~~~
The article Puerto Rico (proposed state) topically overlaps with Puerto Rico statehood movement and also partially with Political status of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012. There's a lot of duplicated text. I propose that all detailed text related to the possibility of the territory becoming a U.S. state should be consolidated into this article. Sandstein 11:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done
Ego White Tray (
talk) 22:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not done and not likely to be done — Reverted per
WP:NOTADEMOCRACY,
WP:VOTE, and
WP:IAR. Discussion held at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico. Resolution was:
- Puerto Rican statehood movement remains as a stand alone article. This is supported by Puerto Rico independence movement, Puerto Rico free association movement, and [1].
-
Puerto Rico (proposed state) becomes
Proposed political status for Puerto Rico which will detail all the different political status proposed for Puerto Rico and their implications (not only statehood which was its sole content at the time of this discussion). Essentially it will be the parent article for
Puerto Rican statehood movement,
Puerto Rico independence movement, and
Puerto Rico free association movement with an overview, history, and sections detailing each movement and their implications. The sections detailing the movements should use
{{ main}}. - Political status of Puerto Rico remains as a stand alone article about what Puerto Rico is today.
- — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 23:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Merge. This is actually a good idea, as this is different from previous attempts. Ericl ( talk) 15:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Merge. I agree the information should be consolidated - but I think it should actually be consolidated into the Puerto Rico (proposed state) page because there has now been a change in this political issue - we're no longer talking about a political idea but a substantive election and proposal that will be debated and will become part of the American national political discourse for the next few years (if we go by how long Hawaii and Alaska took to become a state once they voted for it). I think it's crucial to graduate the discussion to reflect what has changed in fact and that presenting the page as one focused on the proposal to move the territory into full statehood would provide a much cleaner and accurate resource for those using Wikipedia for information on the subject. There should be clarity that it's no longer a political 'movement' alone but that a proposal has now begun to materialize, information related to the statehood movement itself is now mainly historical: the background that should flesh out a Puerto Rico (proposed state) page.-- Polisci101 ( talk) 21:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Merge. I also feel that the info should be merged into the article Puerto Rico (proposed state) with over 60% of the population it is at an all time high. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree that Puerto Rican statehood movement is the better title for the topic. Puerto Rico (proposed state) sounds like a disambiguation title. Wikipedia uses parenthetical disambiguators only to distinguish between different topics that share the same name. Here, the topic is not Puerto Rico as it would be as a state (if it ever becomes a state, that article will still be Puerto Rico), but the political movement and process leading to statehood. Sandstein 08:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as a stand alone article. Wow, this clearly was a really bad decision. This article should stand on its own since it explains the political stand from a very specific and narrow point of view. That was not consensus, I'm reverting it back per WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, WP:VOTE, and WP:IAR — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- See Puerto Rico independence movement as well. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just created Puerto Rico free association movement too. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
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) 19:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Roll Call Report
Puerto Rico People Vote for Change -- and Statehood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.82.115 ( talk) 05:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been trying unsuccessfully to find out what is/are the reason(s) for the delay in having the people of Puerto Rico vote on another referendum regarding the status of Puerto Rico. I totally agree that the wording of the November 6, 2012 referendum disqualifies it as an accurate representation of the desires of the Puerto Rican people on the subject, and I was very surprised to learn that another referendum regarding Puerto Rico's status was not on the November 2014 ballot, especially since the United States said it would pay for the next such referendum in a bill that Pres. Obama signed into law on January 17, 2014.
So far this is the only article I've found that makes any mention of the U.S. government's response to Puerto Rico's December 11, 2012 request for statehood. Ironically, despite the section regarding merging this article with an article titled Puerto Rico (proposed state) that makes up the bulk of this talk page, Puerto Rico (proposed state) redirects to Proposed political status for Puerto Rico, and in the list of status options near the beginning of that article, the statehood option links to this article.
HankW512 ( talk) 00:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps should we harmonize titles like:
-- Dereckson ( talk) 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The page has lengthy sections of groups and individuals that support statehood. Yet there is no mention of those opposed. Considering previous vote results, I have to believe there is significant opposition to statehood. What is the view of these people? 68.46.82.132 ( talk) 02:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- A different article covers that: Independence movement in Puerto Rico and it's linked within this article in the 2012 statehood vote section.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 23:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Merge section from 51st state#Puerto Rico
I'm suggesting over at Talk:51st state that the Puerto Rico sections there be moved into this article, as there should be nothing there that doesn't belong here; this article should be simultaneously about the statehood movement in Puerto Rico and the parallel movement in US. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Statehood movement in the District of Columbia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor removed the entire "mainland support" section which included referenced discussion on an executive order concerning "determination of Puerto Rico's ultimate status"; the positions of the two major U.S. parties on self-determination; and the current president's position on self-determination or statehood in which he stated "statehood would be the most effective means". This removal makes no sense to me. ☆ Bri ( talk) 00:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Bri, Did you not read the exhaustive list of reasons why none of that material belonged there left in the edit summaries? I am not sure why it may make no sense to you if you read both those edit summaries and their associated material. Like me, you too are a longtime editor, so you have surely read WP:SYNTH and understand its meaning. Yes, all that material was referenced; I made sure to go thru the painstaking process of check each and every work of each and every cite. So, no, I had no quarrel with the cites, and they all exactly what the quoted text in the article stated. The problem is that the editor(s) who added that material were claiming with each quote that those positions (by US parties, US presidents, etc.) proved support for PR statehood when the only support they proved was support for the self-determination of the political status of PR by Puerto Ricans. Said simply, the text there stated that if, for example, Puerto Ricans chose to become an independent nation (another manifestation of self-determination just like statehood) then those US political parties, US presidents, etc., would also support independence. Certainly, a US president who is claimed to be supporting statehood could not possibly also be supporting --just the opposite-- independence at the same time, right?. Otherwise, this would be analogous to supporting, say, sending American troops to Ukraine and also supporting not sending them, or supporting the Cuban embargo and also not supporting it. That is the claims there were not claims for statehood but statements of support for self-determiniation. Statehood (like independence) can't take place until self-determination has taken place. And self determination is all that entire section was about, none of it was manifesting exclusive support for statehood.
- As you can see, I didn't revert your revert; but you shouldn't take that to mean I am not convinced, after all, that I should had removed the material. No, not at all. You should, instead, take that to mean I am not looking for an edit war. That's all.
Mercy11 (
talk) 03:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's fine if you edit the text so the presentation matches the sources. E.g. a politician or a party supporting self-determination. My objection was to your eliminating the section in its entirety. ☆
Bri (
talk) 05:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Bri, I would had been just as concerned about it as you are/were if I had seen an editor remove an entire section, but as I went down each that section, item by item, I reached the end of the section and found all of the items there were invalid for some valid reason. At that point I faced a choice, either (a) leave the section header only and tag with "This section is empty, needs attention" or something similar, or (b) to remove the section altogether.
- The problem with your suggestion ("edit the text so the presentation matches the sources, e.g., a politician or a party supporting self-determination [said such and such...]") is that then we aren't adding content on the mainland support for statehood, which is the subject of the article, but on mainland support for self-determination, and the article isn't about self determination. Trust me, I'd like to accommodate that sort of stuff but self-determination is irrelevant to the article unless we split the article and spun off a new article on "Puerto Rico self-determination", and we put all of that section's info there. I would have no objection to that as it would result in 2 articles whose contents are a true reflection of their article names. What do you think? Mercy11 ( talk) 22:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's fine if you edit the text so the presentation matches the sources. E.g. a politician or a party supporting self-determination. My objection was to your eliminating the section in its entirety. ☆
Bri (
talk) 05:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Removing George H. W. Bush from "Support outside Puerto Rico"
@ Mercy11: Regarding this edit, it is relevant and notable that a former president of the United States has a position on the issue, even if he is now dead. In fact, he was dead when it was added to the article. Will this section be empty after all of these people have died? Wikipedia contains histories, not just present-day politics.
If anything, your edits should have made clear that Bush is dead and better outlined the chronology of support. For example, see WP:PRESERVE. Thanks. Wracking 💬 06:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Stop standing on a soapbox, it's not relevant: Once he was no longer president, he became a private citizen, so his official "position" became as good as John Doe's. And if he was dead when the info was added in, it only proves there are 2 of you making poor editorial judgement. You aren't even using correct English: a dead president isn't called a "former president" but a late president. IAE, if having him listed there turns you on, go ahead knock yourself out; no need to whine this much. Oh, and don't waste your effort replying -- it will be deleted unread. Mercy11 ( talk) 00:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
You have a wiki for the Democrats but not the Republicans 🤔🤔🤔, shame 24.190.30.30 ( talk) 03:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Declancryan (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lefeverk ( talk) 17:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- C-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Puerto Rico articles
- Top-importance Puerto Rico articles
- C-Class Puerto Rico articles of Top-importance
- C-Class politics articles
- Top-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Top-importance sociology articles
- C-Class social movements task force articles
- Social movements task force articles