Talk:English language in Puerto Rico

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

Lede section information[edit]

This section concerns recent edits made to the lede section, and which I have reverted. Per WP:LEDE ("The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects"), I have reverted THIS edit as it fails that criteria.

I reverted the edits per WP:LEDE, which states "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". As such, information placed on the lede section should be there only if discussed in the article, which wasn't the case with the edit in question.

Also per WP:LEDE, "The lead serves as...a summary of its most important aspects." That being said, the information added was needlessly redundant since the original statement "Various surveys have found that the majority of Puerto Ricans do not speak English 'very well'" is a perfectly reasonable summary description of the detail statistical statement "In 2000, 85.6% of people in Puerto Rico spoke a language other than English at home (mostly Spanish), and 71.9% spoke English less than 'very well'."

Finally, editor User:Philpill691 has stated, HERE and HERE, that there were "broken...references" and has used that as a reason to removed the link. This was a violation of WP:BADLINK ("Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer...WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link."). Deleting information is not the way to handle this sort of situation in Wikipedia, but to mark the link with the "dead link" template ({{dead link}}). Perhaps, the other editor felt the information could not be Verified, which is an entirely legitimate concern. But then perhaps he is not familiar with the WP:WAYBACK machine which is able to provide historical information to verify information of broken links.

Also, in the same edit summary HERE the editor stated that "Two of those references are...not English" and used that as a reason to removed the link and change the statement. However, this is a violation of WP:NONENG ("Citations to non-English sources are allowed").

In conclusion, the 2 original sources in question (see HERE) removed by the other editor were dated from 24 February 2009 (4 years ago) and 2005–2009 (collected in 2009 or 2010, thus at most 4 years ago). Per WP:Updating information, this more recent information is preferable in the lede over the 2000 information (13 years ago, and seemingly republished in 2003 (10 years ago)) that the other editor is relying on HERE.

I have restored the lede to the original version and, per WP:CON and WP:DISPUTE, have opened up discussion on this page to start a fuller dialogue and understand the goals of the other editor as well as allow his to obtain consensus for his edit changes.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

1: You must not have looked at my edit very closely because I made sure to also include the information in the article, separate from the lead.
2: In an article with as small of an introduction as this one it is perfectly acceptable to elaborate on important information which gives readers accurate figures regarding the present use of English with respect to other languages, which is arguably the most important piece of information in this article, and one many people are looking for when they read this article. And, as is acknowledged at WP:LEAD, many people only look at the lead when reading an article, so this is the kind of important information we should provide early on in the article.
3: I sincerely did not know about that particular policy, and apologize for that. Since you have brought it to my attention I would be fine with including the dead link in the article. Though I don’t see the point if we have other non-broken citations.
4: I did use the language of the article to remove the link because, as is stated at the very page you just brought up, "[B]ecause this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, where English sources of equal quality and relevance are available," which is the case here, as the source I prefer gives specific statistics as provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. So while "[c]itations to non-English sources are allowed," English ones are preferred when available.
5a: The Spanish source also does not discuss how many Puerto Ricans speak English "very well," as defined by the Census Bureau, but discusses how many Puerto Ricans have an "advanced" proficiency in English according to a study by the University of Puerto Rico. Certainly the two are extremely similar, yet they are distinctive. Since the Spanish source seems to give a figure based on different measures of English proficiency, I would be okay with including the Spanish source to cite a separate sentence discussing the findings of that study. The lead could use some expansion anyway.
5b: Since the other (broken) source does not provide any information (because it’s broken) that source is not really updating anything, but as I stated before, I wouldn’t have a problem if you want to keep that particular citation.
In closing, I maintain that the census source should be kept in both the lead and the body (as I had it) because it is reliable, and not yet dated (the Spanish source gives similar yet distinct information), along with the specific figures I added, as the information is extremely relevant to the subject matter, and the lead (at this point) certainly does not need to be restricted; it needs to be expanded. I am also willing to compromise and use the other sources which you do not want to be removed; I would endorse the addition of a separate sentence in the lead and in the body discussing the information in the Spanish source. I have tried to compromise here; please do me a favor and try to do the same. Have a good day.
--Philpill691 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Philpill691, I did see your edit closely, I just don't believe in discussing the same issue ad nauseum: Your fiest set of edits HERE did not inlcude the information in the body at all. Again, I wont discuss ad nauseum. Currently the article is 19K in size and, per WP:LEDE (HERE), 2 paragraphs is "appropriate length". I can't find anywhere in WP:PG where it states what you are saying, namely that "In an article with as small of an introduction as this one it is perfectly acceptable to elaborate on important information which gives readers accurate figures..."; per WP:LEDE, the lead section (In Wikipedia we don't call it, as you do, "the introduction" perhaps so as not to introduce ambiguity since "Introduction" is oftentimes used as the header of the first section in the body of a Wikipedia article) "...serves as ...a summary of its [the article's] most important aspects." You might want to discuss, in the appropriate forum (HERE), your concerns about the policy that allows the continued use of dead links, but to respond to your comment that "I don’t see the point [of using dead links] if we have other non-[dead] citations", in my experience, live citations can become dead links in the future and it has happened more than once that a previously dead citation that was kept around is then easier to locate than one that was live but became dead more recently. As for WP:NONENG, I think you are mis-interpreting the use of their word "preferred": It does not mean that non English sources cannot be used and thus are to be deleted, it means that if two sources say the same equivalent thing, we should use the English version of the source (for example -- and I am being obviously brutal here for illustration purposes -- we should use the second of these two options: [1], [2]). When sources are, as you say "extremely similar, yet they are distinctive", IMO the best course of action is to inlcude both.
I think the best approach at this point is to use actual examples of proposed wording (I will concentrate in the lede section for now. I hope I am not wrong if I say I sense the contents in the body of the article can be more easily negotiated.) With that said, how about the following wording and citations:

"Various surveys have found that the majority of Puerto Ricans do not speak English "very well".[1][2][3] In 2000, the US Census found that 71.9% of the residents spoke English less than "very well."[4]"

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Yes, but in my most recent edit I did include the information in the body. WP:LEADLENGTH says that three paragraphs is also an appropriate number of paragraphs for this sized article, not to mention that our current lead paragraphs are rather small. Therefore, generally speaking, this article’s lead has substantial room to grow. So important figures which many people are looking for, such as the ones I added, can currently be comfortably added to the lead. Thank you for a good answer regarding the dead link issue. Though if we were to archive our live citations with a service such as WebCite then wouldn’t it be okay to remove the dead link as there is no way the live citations could ever be lost? But I digress. I think you misunderstood what I meant with non-English sources; I myself already said that because the sources seem to give slightly different information I would be okay with keeping the Spanish source to cite a different statement. I never said or thought that non-English sources are prohibited; I think we are on the same page in terms of that. I generally agree with what you posted, but would like the addition of the other piece of information about the percentage of Puerto Ricans who speak English at home. So to clarify, this is what I propose to be added to the lead:

Various surveys have found that the majority of Puerto Ricans do not speak English "very well".[5][6][7] The 2000 US Census found that 85.6% of people in Puerto Rico spoke a language other than English at home (mostly Spanish), and 71.9% spoke English less than "very well."[4]

How about that?
--Philpill691 (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly fond of including the two percentages in the same sentence because -- on first impression -- they seem confusing, since they do not add to 100% (our brains are somewhat wired to expect for percentage figures to add up to 100%). That said, how about this:

"Various surveys have found that the majority of Puerto Ricans do not speak English "very well"[8][9] and, in 2000, the US Census found that 71.9% of the residents spoke English less than "very well." The same U.S. Census survey also found that 85.6% of residents spoke a language other than English at home (mostly Spanish).[4]"

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Reasonable point. How about this:

Various surveys have found that the majority of Puerto Ricans are not fully fluent in English.[10][11] The 2000 US Census found that 71.9% of people in Puerto Rico spoke English less than "very well."[4] It also found that 85.6% spoke a language other than English at home (mostly Spanish).[4]

--Philpill691 (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Go ahead put it in when you get a chance. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

 Done --Philpill691 (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ¿Se discrimina al usar el inglés en algunos tribunales de Puerto Rico? Prensa Asociada. New York Daily News. 24 February 2009. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
  2. ^ 2005–2009 Population and Housing Narrative Profile for Puerto Rico. U.S. Census Narrative Profile. U.S. Census. 2005–2009. Retrieved 19 May 2011.
  3. ^ "Table 2. Language Use and English-Speaking Ability for the Population 5 Years and Over for the United States, Regions, and States and for Puerto Rico: 1990 and 2000" in Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000 Census 2000 Brief, p.5, U.S. Census Bureau
  4. ^ a b c d e "Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000" (PDF). U.S. Census Bureau. October 2003. p. 5. Retrieved July 13, 2013.
  5. ^ ¿Se discrimina al usar el inglés en algunos tribunales de Puerto Rico? Prensa Asociada. New York Daily News. 24 February 2009. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
  6. ^ 2005–2009 Population and Housing Narrative Profile for Puerto Rico. U.S. Census Narrative Profile. U.S. Census. 2005–2009. Retrieved 19 May 2011.
  7. ^ "Table 2. Language Use and English-Speaking Ability for the Population 5 Years and Over for the United States, Regions, and States and for Puerto Rico: 1990 and 2000" in Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000 Census 2000 Brief, p.5, U.S. Census Bureau
  8. ^ ¿Se discrimina al usar el inglés en algunos tribunales de Puerto Rico? Prensa Asociada. New York Daily News. 24 February 2009. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
  9. ^ 2005–2009 Population and Housing Narrative Profile for Puerto Rico. U.S. Census Narrative Profile. U.S. Census. 2005–2009. Retrieved 19 May 2011.
  10. ^ ¿Se discrimina al usar el inglés en algunos tribunales de Puerto Rico? Prensa Asociada. New York Daily News. 24 February 2009. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
  11. ^ 2005–2009 Population and Housing Narrative Profile for Puerto Rico. U.S. Census Narrative Profile. U.S. Census. 2005–2009. Retrieved 19 May 2011.

Private schools for the elite[edit]

English_in_Puerto_Rico#Education says "private schools for the elite perpetuate the use of English.". That's not worded very well: what does "the elite" mean, and what distinguishes "private schools for the elite" from private schools in general? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the "elite" qualification is not warranted - there is no difference. Removed. Mercy11 (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source refer to private schools in general perpetuating the use of English, or just a certain type of private schools (whatever a "private schools for the elite" is)? If the source refers to private schools in general then your edit is fine, but it refers only to a certain type of private school the edit changed the meaning of the sentence. The "private schools for the elite" could just be a poor paraphrasing of whatever type of whatever kind private school the source is referring to. The source is a Spanish-language PDF, so I can't read it or have Google translate it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why the sources on this page are listed at all. They don't fulfill the criteria of WP:Source. 75.128.1.32 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change of article focus[edit]

I have reverted the edits by Tommyvercetti098 to his last edit on 21:07, 17 December 2022‎ as these edits changed the focus of the article from the USE of the English language in Puerto Rico (its history, laws supporting Government use of English language, percentage of English language-only speakers, etc.) to a totally different subject, namely the alleged dialect of the English language unique to Puerto Rico only. That sort of topic belongs in a different article. Please note I also moved back the page as it had also been moved --controversially and without discussion-- by editor Tommyvercetti098. My move reverted the page from Tommyvercetti098's "Puerto Rican English" to "English language in Puerto Rico". IAE, if I am missing something, it can be discussed here. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted unexplained edits by Tommyvercetti098 again here as they violate WP:OR. Equally violated was the policy on WP:CONSENSUS which Tommyvercetti098 has so far not engaged in. Mercy11 (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_language_in_Puerto_Rico&oldid=1201765220"