Talk:Afro–Puerto Ricans

Spanish version

There should a spanish version, so Puerto Ricans back in the island, can see this and learn more of the African side of Puerto Rican culture.

Why no photo of Roberto Clemente?

Why no photo of him in the Infobox? There are at least two in his WP article.Parkwells (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No 40 acres and a mule in US, either

The section following abolition of slavery likens freed slaves who sold produce from their plots to sharecroppers in the US, but said that unlike in the US, they did not receive "40 acres and a mule." Freedmen in the US did not receive 40 acres and a mule after the war, which is why so many of those in rural areas had to fall back on sharecropping or tenant farming to survive. While this idea of divvying up plantations to give former slaves land allotments was popular in some quarters, it did not take place after the war. In a few occupied areas during the war, such as the Sea Islands off South Carolina and Georgia, slaves were allocated property to farm but, after the war, such holdings were generally returned to the legal owners. In some cases, slaves worked as sharecroppers - farming the land owned by another for a share of the crops; in others, they moved into towns or cities to take up trades for wages.Parkwells (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Changing Article Title to "Afro-Puerto-Rican"

Although the title of "African immigration to Puerto Rico" falls in line with the other articles describing other ethnic groups in Puerto Rico, the title does not fall in line with the history that the article explains. Forced slavery isn't immigration, and voluntary arrival thereafter would be considered immigration. Rather than having the article fall in line with the other Puerto Rican ethnic group pages, it should fall in line with other Latin American/African diaspora pages that title the article "Afro-Cuban" for example.

I suggest this article's title be changed to *Afro-Puerto Rican* in accordance with the other Latin American African population pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.193.228 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I AGREE, this article should be called "Afro-Puerto Rican". Immigration incurs that it happened after colonization which is incorrect. Puerto Rico is no different than all the other Latin American countries who had slaves during colonial times. I'm going to request a move. Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I could move it to a title more suitable such as "The history of the Afro-Puerto Rican", which is what it is. Agreed? Tony the Marine (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So much talk, yet when I make a suggestion and asked for an agreement, both of you above say nothing. So, what's the deal? If I am not going to hear from any of you, then the title will stay as is. This is because the governing committee of those who grant the "good article" status to an article granted the article its' good status under the current title. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Tony the Marine, I had replied to your message that you had left me on my talk page moments ago answering your question whether it should be "History of Afro-Puerto Ricans" or just "Afro-Puerto Ricans" by saying:,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me and considering this move, while acknowledging my interest in the subject. In this case, I believe that less is more. The beauty about Latin America is that it shares a certain unity, as it was born into a "New World" with a mixture of many proud races and cultures. The simplicity here keeps the reader involved and can easily make the transition between "Afro-Cuban", "Afro-Puerto Rican", "Afro-Brazilian" etc. For Puerto Ricans of African descent, the acknowledgement as a "current" ethnic group is crucial, rather then being looked at as "historical." Looking over the demographics of Puerto Rico, the Afros in Puerto Rico make up a strong number. As a result, I just would think the title would be more fitting as Afro-Puerto Rican. Thanks again! Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response Savvyjack23, Afro-Puerto Rican it will be. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent job Tony the Marine; thanks!

Dubious source , dubious claims

I've been paying closer attention to the sources cited in Wikipedia articles after a friend brought to my attention some cases where Wikipedia articles cite sources to back up assertions which themselves cite the very same Wikipedia article as its source (in effect such articles cite themselves as the source of thrur claims). There is a problem with sources cited in Wikipedia articles in general. I get the sense few bother to evaluate the credibility of sources cited. In this case, an online encyclopedia called "Afropedea" is cited. This is not a credible source. In fact the specifc article referenced contains several glaring errors, such as the claim that "Breaking Bad" actor Giancarlo Esposito is an "Afro-Puerto Rican" (he is actually half Italian and half African-American and was born in Denmark).

I also find the articles claim that "Spain's exposure to people of color over the centuries accounted for the positive racial attitudes that prevailed in the New World" to be downright bizarre. They enslaved blacks and Indians for heaven's sake. The Spaniards and Portuguese were the first Europeans to enslave blacks and Indians and were the last to abandon the practice. Around 95% of the blacks brought to the New World as slaves were brought on Spanish and Portuguese ships to toil in Latin-American colonies. In fact the Spanish never voluntarily sbsndoned the slave trade but rather were forced to cease the practice by the British. The suggestion that the Spanish had positive racial attitudes is simply ridiculous. CannotFindAName (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I like your observation. When this article was originally written, it was without question one of the best. However, throughout the years various users have edit it and the result as you can see is that they've added what may be considered POV or cite unreliable sources. I invite you to make the proper changes and to remove "Afropedea" as a source. Just make sure that you follow Wikipedia policy as to citing reliable verifiable sources when editing.

Slavery has been one of the worst violations of human rights since the beginning of time. We all know how the Egyptians enslaved the Jews and how the Vikings and other conquering tribes in Europe enslaved those whom they conquered. Now, in regard to the blacks, the first Europeans to enslave them were the Greeks and the Romans. Of course the slave trade was not limited to "White" Europeans, in Asia it was quite common. However a lot of people seem to forget that the black slaves who were sold to the slave traders were slaves and or the victims of their tribal chiefs. Plus, in the so-called "New World" slavery already existed among the natives. The Mayas and the Aztecs enslaved and sacrificed those whom they conquered. Even in Puerto Rico, the Caribs enslaved and even ate the Tainos whom at times they fought and beat. Yes, the Spaniards and Portuguese were sinners when it came to the slave trade, but they were not the only bad guys and certainly were not forced by the British to abolish slavery. The British, French and Dutch were just as cruel with their slaves in the Caribbean. While there were abolitionists in the Spanish colonies, who convinced the Spanish Parliament to abolish slavery, the British endorsed and supported the Confederate States of American who fought to retain their slaves. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Percentage of population: infobox and lead

I really think that the WP:CALC figure needs to be taken out of the infobox unless it's qualified by sources. There's a huge gap in the range of estimates according to various sources, and it's something to be dealt with in the body of the article (preferably a brief statement in the lead) rather than 'guesstimates' being put into the infobox.

If it is deemed that estimates should be in the infobox, I would suggest that they be broken down as 'lowest estimate' and 'highest estimate' (both with sources). Any thoughts from other editors? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The whitewashing of this damn page is fuckin crazy.

Several editors like Asilah1981 and Iryna Harpy have seriously vandilized and whitewashed this page as well as Puerto Rican history. They have deleted several clips of information in an attempt to make Puerto Rico and its history look less black/African.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spreadofknowledge (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Spreadofknowledge!? Would you care to substantiate your accusations with some diffs and clarify where you've come up with this 'whitewashing' theory? ... as well as abstain from such crudity... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I remember the list of notable Afro Puerto Rican’s to be much bigger?

What happened? Theultimaterevisionist (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Good question! To tell the truth, I think that maybe some of the names were removed from the list because the subject in question did not have African blood in their veins or maybe because in accordance to Wikipedia policy a reliable verifiable source must be provided and cited. That is what I believe happened. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2024

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: moved. (non-admin closure) RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Afro-Puerto Ricans → Afro–Puerto Ricans
• Afro-Costa Ricans → Afro–Costa Ricans

– Per MOS:PREFIXDASH, when applying a prefix to a multi-word phrase, such as in this case "Puerto Ricans" and "Costa Ricans," an endash should be used instead of a hyphen. Bensci54 (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. SilverLocust 💬 03:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: Tektonson and Arctic Circle System are both active and this reverses their previous bold moves, so they might like to contribute here. Andrewa (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I think I missed the policy on how dashes should be used with multi-word phrases. My apologies. Arctic Circle System (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom, just like Afro–Latin Americans, Afro–Middle Easterners, etc. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I should note that I just recently moved Afro–Middle Easterners as part of this effort. Its stable name had a hyphen. I boldly moved that one as there was no move history on it that would make it controversial. Bensci54 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Straightforward application of MOS:PREFIXDASH. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: To maintain consistency, it needs to be fixed. Waqar💬 15:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Afro-Puerto Rican isn't an adjectival compound

Re the change from "Afro-Puerto Rican" to "Afro–Puerto Rican", I think there's been a mistake in interpreting MOS.

"Afro-Puerto Rican" is a compound with a space in it, but Puerto Rican isn't (not on the same way, anyway). When you check the Wikipedia page on dashes (under en dashes), it clarifies you only use an en dash when compounding a compound, and it should be an adjectival compound at that. The intent, I believe, is to differentiate the original compound from the newly added words to make it clear what the subject is. The en dash serves as a "higher order hyphen", in the sense that "anti–Afro-Puerto Rican" means "anti-(Afro-Puerto Ricans)" rather than "(anti-Afro) Puerto Ricans". The latter would suggest Puerto Ricans opposed to Afros/Africans, whereas the former makes clear the stance is one against people who are Afro-Puerto Rican (as a single category). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#En_dash

"Afro–Puerto Rican" instead suggests a relationship such as "African–Puerto Rican trade". The letter of the law may appear to be correct, but the spirit isn't — and the result not only doesn't make sense but serves to subordinate/distance the "Afro-" from the "Puerto Rican".

I wanted to raise it with everyone here to discuss first, before raising it for possible move review.

Edited: I made a mess of this. Have cleaned up my threads to make the point clearer. Lewisguile (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bensci54, SilverLocust, Tektonson, Arctic Circle System, Andrewa, Hyphenation Expert, BarrelProof, and Iwaqarhashmi: pinging. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the pings! Lewisguile (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, though I have no strong feelings on this one way or the other. Hope that helps! Arctic Circle System (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I almost didn't comment but then felt I should anyway.

It's a minor thing in the scheme of things but I've noticed a trend where the MOS has been interpreted in one particular way for this issue, and a bunch of articles have now been changed according to that interpretation.

But it misses the spirit of the rule in English: that the en dash is used as a "higher order hyphen" to clarify the subject (which comes either before or after the en dash). "Ex–Prime Minister" is a former PM, not a minister who was previously "prime". It's like the function of brackets in mathematics.

In this case, inserting the en dash between "Afro" and "Puerto Rican" ends up splitting the subject into two proposed entities, rather than treating it as a singular subject. An uncharitable reading is that it's intended to undermine the inherent Puerto Ricanness of Black Puerto Ricans; a charitable reading is that it's a mistake that potentially falls afoul of WP:CSB. Lewisguile (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Lewisguile, Cambridge clearly states that Afro- is a prefix, meaning "of or connected with Africa", and gives two examples of its use: "Afro-Caribbean culture" and "Afro-American literature". (I suppose they don't necessarily follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, of course.) RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And so does Wiktionary, for what it's worth. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

As a follow-up, every example under WP:MOS:PREFIXDASH is also an adjectival compound, whereas Afro-Puerto Rican isn't: Lewisguile (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I saw that, too, but worry that perhaps my poor wording has muddled things.

Note that Cambridge also describes a combining form here:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/combining-form

It gives the example of Anglo and Anglo-American, which is directly comparable. Anglo-American is a single name compounded from two words; Anglo isn't a preposition or a relational term in the sense meant by WP:MOS:PREFIXDASH.

Note also that all the examples given at WP:MOS:PREFIXDASH are compounding or amending compounds. E.g., "Ex–Prime Minister". But Puerto Rican isn't a compound in the same sense. We're not talking about Puertos from a place called Rica who are African (three things). We're talking about Puertos Ricans (one thing) who are also African (thus two things total), and thus one compound not two.

So you'd only use an en dash to compound "Afro-Puerto Rican" with something else. Lewisguile (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"Puerto Rican" is a compound word formed by "Puerto", "Rico", and "-an". RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is a singular place and Puerto Ricans are a singular people (Puertans and Ricans aren't different things; there isn't one without the other). Afro-Puerto Rican is a singular compound (Afro + Puerto Rican); all three words form the compound. Reading the WP page, it suggests en dashes only replace the hyphen when compounding a compound. If that makes sense?

So "Afro-Puerto Rican" is only one compound, but "Afro-Puerto Rican–American" or "Anti–Afro-Puerto Rican" would be compounds of a compound, and this require the en dash.

Lewisguile (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

In Trans–New Guinea, New Guinea is also only a "singular place". It is a proper noun, not a Guinea that is "new". Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

They're not the same kind of prefix, though. The very same page on hyphens and dashes in MOS, just a little bit above that example, gives a relevant example we can use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dual_nationalities

"Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; Franco- is a combining form, not an independent word, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry."

There is a difference between a prefix which is a combining form and a prefix which is just a prefix. "Trans-" expresses a relationship or position relative to the word or term that follows. It's similar to "pre-" (before), "post-" (after), "anti-" (opposed to), etc, in that it's not part of the same term; it just expresses a relationship to that term.

But just as "Franco-" in "Franco-British" is not an independent word (it's a part of "Franco-British"), neither is "Afro-" in "Afro-Puerto Rican". "Afro-" doesn't carry the same prepositional meaning as "pre-" or "post-" or "trans-", etc.

The other example for using en-dashes instead of hyphens relates to adding "-like" and "-esque", which also set up a relationship. They suggest "like x" or "reminiscent of x", but they aren't inherent parts of x itself, merely modifiers to it. "Afro-Puerto Rican" better fits the description under WP:MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES than the one under WP:MOS:PREFIXDASH.

The only reason there's confusion is because Puerto Rico is two words. Swap Puerto Rico for any one-word nationality, and it would be clearer what the convention should be.

Moreover, most conventions aren't just rules that we follow "because"; they're rules that are supposed to help you understand meaning. The purpose of replacing a hyphen with an en-dash in a multi-compound term is, in my view, to make it clear what the appendage is — i.e., the part that isn't naturally part of the word or term.

"Trans–New Guinean" makes it clear that "trans-" has been appended to "New Guinean". But "Afro-" isn't an appendage to "Puerto Rican", because Afro-Puerto Ricans are Puerto Rican (and of African descent). They're one thing; "Afro-" is an inherent quality, not an additive to suggest a positionality to being Puerto Rican.

I'll see if I can find some linguistic experts to support this. Lewisguile (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

"Afro-" is a prefix; it applies not to "Puerto" but "Puerto Rican". That's all that this rule is about. The en dash is correct. SilverLocust 💬 08:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia itself, you only sub an en dash for a hyphen in adjectival compounds. In this way, the en dash serves as a "higher order hyphen". "Afro-Puerto Rican" is a proper name, not an adjective. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Attributive_compounds

Someone on Substack explains the nuancewell: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/91206 They quote the following from The Chicago Manual of Style, sixteenth edition (2010), section 6.80: "The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound... [T]he distinction is most helpful with proper compounds, whose limits are established within the larger context by capitalization. ... [Examples:] the post–World War II years | Chuck Berry–style lyrics". I.e., as a general guideline, the en dash belongs to outside all the capital letters of the phrase/term.

Other MOSes agree with this.

The AP MOS suggests you only replace a hyphen with an en dash when the compound is adjectival — so "pre–Afro-Puerto Rican discussions" would be correct, as "Afro-Puerto Rican" is used an adjective of "discussions" and it's being compounded with the prefix "pre-". See here: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/punctuation/dashes#rewrite_to_avoid_joining_prefixes_with_an_en_dash

The same MOS describes compounds, hyphens and en dashes: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/punctuation/dashes#join_nouns_with_en_dashes_to_show_equal_relationships In this case, it says the en dash shows an equal or opposite relationship (as in "African–Puerto Rican relations"), but that a hyphen creates a compound instead (thus "African-Puerto Rican" would mean the same as "Afro-Puerto Rican", which is an entirely different meaning to "African–Puerto Rican").

This section also explains the difference between a compound noun ("Afro-Puerto Rican") and a coordinate noun ("African–Puerto Rican"). The two things are hyphenated differently because they imply different things.

The Chicago MOS, like the AP and Wilipedia, points out that the en dash is only used when compounding terms as an adjective (i.e., not for compound nouns/names such as "Afro-Puerto Rican"): https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/book/ed18/part2/ch06/psec086.html

Merriam-Webster also suggests you only sub in the en dash only for compound adjectives: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/em-dash-en-dash-how-to-use

Note also that every source used in the article, when it uses the term at all, uses "Afro-Puerto Rican" and not "Afro–Puerto Rican". Lewisguile (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

For the direct quotes:

Attributive compounds

In English, the en dash is usually used instead of a hyphen in compound (phrasal) attributives [i.e., adjectival compounds] in which one or both elements is itself a compound, especially when the compound element is an open compound, meaning it is not itself hyphenated. This manner of usage may include such examples as [note that all the compounds are adjectival, in that they describe something else, such as an era or a pizza]:

• The hospital–nursing home connection (the connection between the hospital and the nursing home, not a home connection between the hospital and nursing)
• A nursing home–home care policy (a policy about the nursing home and home care)
• Pre–Civil War era
• Pulitzer Prize–winning novel
• New York–style pizza
• The non–San Francisco part of the world
• The post–World War II era
  • (Compare post-war era, which, if not fully compounded (postwar), takes a hyphen, not an en dash. The difference is that war is not an open compound, whereas World War II is.)
• Trans–New Guinea languages
• The ex–prime minister
• a long–focal length camera
• water ice–based bedrock
• The pro-conscription–anti-conscription debate
• Public-school–private-school rivalries

The disambiguating value of the en dash in these patterns was illustrated by Strunk and White in The Elements of Style with the following example: When Chattanooga News and Chattanooga Free Press merged, the joint company was inaptly named Chattanooga News-Free Press (using a hyphen), which could be interpreted as meaning that their newspapers were news-free.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Attributive_compounds Lewisguile (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)