Talk:Luis Fortuño

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Ideas

Would be useful if somebody (preferable academic) talk about his Ultra Conservative Ideas, and Discuss(with historical references in similar government) how these ideas will Worsen/Improve the weakening economic situation in the island, especially to middle class.

That's contentious, we need verifiable sources that talk about this. We can't just find someone who will write their opinion on here, even if they are from academia. We need to find external sources. Perhaps articles from Claridad? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Claridad as a verifiable source? A newspaper that is compromised with a political ideology to provide information for someone from another ideology? Not very reliable 131.94.223.135 (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia has to scholarly to a degree, but the discussion is laughable from the perspective of puertorricans living here. It's not really "contentious". This guy openly talks to religious fundamentalists groups, and in 2010 alone he has ordered the police to beat up protesters SO MUCH its not even funny. And by the way, Claridad is a very reliable, and responsible journalistic source. Whoever thinks they are not just because they have an ideological worldview is an irresponsible and, frankly, an ignorant.. -- a puertorrican

Unsourced allegations to be discussed

I have transferred from the article for discussion the following unsourced allegations:

"===Links to the Abramoff scandal===

Resident Commissioner Luis G. Fortuño has also been involved in allegations from the local Puerto Rican press regarding campaign donations from several ranking members of the "Abramoff gang". Supposedly, Luis Fortuño accepted donations from Republicans like Jerry Weller, Tom Feeney, and Don Young, all of them linked in some way or another to Abramoff. Some speculations say that Fortuño ranks in the bottom tier of a coalition of Republicans that trades campaign donations for earmarks and approval of legislation which benefits Republican candidates. One of the controversial legislations is the confirmation of United States Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico, Rosa Emilia Rodriguez, who was approved disregarding the due process of scrutiny from the Senate."

Highly inflammable political content such as this should be thoroughly sourced prior to placement in the article. Pr4ever (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to unsourced allegations

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia in which everyone from every kind of perspective is allowed to post information accordingly. The controversies section has just been updated with the actual references and videos that confirm the press inquiring Fortuno about the donations, articles about the issue and links to other sources. The text is not politically biased, it is an objective information that informs the reader about his controversies, just as the Acevedo Vila page has one section regarding the donation scandal. This section does not state that the speculations are a truthful fact, it is just a section to stress the importance of those allegations, whether they are true or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.172.189 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets not get ahead of ourselves

WP:CRYSTAL is clear. While no one doubts this event will happen, we should wait until after it happens later today to have a version that shows Fortuño as Governor. New user User:Republikaner most probably did the anonymous edits, and I hope he continues his productive editing (great work, if a bit early!) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while unsourced, the reality is that Governors are usually sworn in on Jan. 2 long before the public inaugural oath of office. Gov. Calderón was sworn in seconds after the stroke of midnight on Jan. 2, 2001, according to what I've heard---trying to get rid of her predecessor at the first moment practicable. Likewise, it is said that Gov. Fortuño was sworn in early on the morning of Jan. 2, 2009 by the Chief Justice, hours before the unusually late 4pm official inaugural ceremonies. So, the "premature" posting by User:Republikaner was probably timely after all, albeit unsourced! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.193.94 (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Second Republican RC

Just noticed this- according to the intro, Fortuño is the second Republican RC, however, he is listed as the 5th in the article on PR's RC's. This disparity needs to be addressed.The Original Historygeek (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Seal of the Governor of Puerto Rico

With no previous discussion, someone removed the image of the Seal of the Governor of Puerto Rico. Users should have been allowed to comment on whether or not the seal should stay or go. If for no other reason, the seal should STAY because it makes the page much more visually attractive and is pertinent to the subject of the page. Remember, a page like this is downloaded and printed by schoolchildren looking for information for their school assignments and we can provide more thanm simply dry, staid text. I'd like to hear what others think. Pr4ever (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it from a purely uniformity viewpoint, it does not appear that any other state or territorial governor has the seal of his or her office or state in their article either, nor does Obama's. Just a thought. The Original Historygeek (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am always in favor of the use of the seals and emblems which represent the subjects discussed in their respective articles. In this case, of course I would agree that the seal should stay, however there is one small detail and that is that the image in question is not "public domain". The person who removed the image of the seal from the article stated the following: "No rationale for use in this article". Therefore, if an image of the seal is going to be used in the Honorable Fortuño's article, a PD image should be uploaded or in this case a "rationale" of usage in the article should be added in the image's page. Here is an example of a rationale that can be used:

Rationale for use in Luis Fortuño 1. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the Governor of Puerto Rico, a subject of public interest.

Tony the Marine (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth info in opening paragraph

I feel as though all of the info explaining PR's status as a commonwealth isn't particularly relevant to the article, and if it is, it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. Thoughts? --Kevin W. 02:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It very much does belong in the opening paragraph, because PR has a unique status within the federal Union, and the Governor's role is also unique. More to the point, saying that PR is an "unincorporated territory" is simply completely, totally inaccurate and minimizes the importance and status of the role of the PR governor, the PR government and its unique status within the Federal Union and its place under the US Federal Constitution. PR is a self governing, incorporated and constitutional Commonwealth territory. It is by no reasonable political definition an "unincorporated" anything. As an example, American Samoa is an unincorporated, federally administered territory and even they have a governor. However, PR has a complete, autonomous, constitutional government with separated powers and branches of government that possesses the same essential (but not identical) structure as any constitutionally established federal state in the Union of the United States. It is more incorporated than the District of Columbia, which, although it finally got some semblance of home rule in the 1970's, is still subject to the whims of the US Congress, which can overrule anything that the DC Mayor and City Government does. Congress does not have that authority over the government of PR. PR has Commonwealth status in the US. Citizens of PR do not pay federal income tax, for instance, but they are full citizens of the United States, just as any citizen of any of the 50 states or the DC (with the possible exception of being eligible to run for US President - I need to look that one up). PR is a unique and completely formed self governing commonwealth territory within and under the Federal Constitution of the United States. It has different rules and status than any other entity in the Federal Union. Another good example is that the Resident Commissioner of PR (their non-voting member of Congress) is the only member of the House of Representatives who serves a four-year term instead of a two year term. This is another example of how the PR government is a unique entity. Among the US Territories, including the CNMI (which politically speaking is the closest territory to PR), only PR has these unique exceptions. To say PR is "unincorporated" means that all 50 states and DC are also equally "unincorporated". What makes PR politically unique is its status within the Federal Union. It is essentially neither fish (a state) nor fowl (an independent nation). Not coincidentally, one of PR's main domestic political issues is its status. As a Commonwealth they essentially get all the benefits of being in the US Federal System without many of the obligations (federal income taxes, excise taxes, etc.). There have been two main groups in the debate - those who believe that PR should be a full state, and those who believe that PR is a US colonial possession and is being oppressed by the US and think PR should be an independent nation (this second group were behind the terrorist attacks, and the attempted assassination of President Truman, in the 1950's). PR is a Commonwealth Territory of the United States. It is not an unincorporated territory - it is a fully incorporated, fully politically vested self governing Commonwealth Territory and a part of the United States under the US Federal Constitution. It is not "unincorporated" by any reasonable definition of the word. Themoodyblue (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

When none other than the committee of jurisdiction the United States House of Representatives assumes a position contrary to yours, see: [1], your position clearly cannot be considered a "consensus" position.

Whether you like it or not, Puerto Rico is consided an unincorporated territory of the United States, has been for 111 years, and its political status has remained the same since 1898. A majority of Puerto Ricans want to change that, but until that happens, we are what we are.

This issue has been discussed ad nauseaum in several different wikipedia pages relating to Puerto Rico and, trust me, the consensus reached throughout does not support the language you had inserted in this article.

Puerto Rico has no autonomy that a state doesn't have. The alleged "fiscal autonomy" is turned on and off by Congress at its whim, for example, when it blew Sec. 936 out of the water in 1995, or when it takes its time to renew the rum tax carry over, now scheduled to expire in December. Pr4ever (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, well since you clearly know more than every one else on this site combined, then go ahead. It is arrogant jackasses such as yourself that make wikipedia get slammed as the domain of no nothing idiots, which is far from true. The 1/10th of 1 percent of the people on this site are like you, and your arrogance and complete insecurity in even possibly being wrong is what makes the other 99.9% of the people on wikipedia, who are trying to provide accurate information, look like you to outside observers. You are a complete waste of time and effort and I am not wasting anymore time dealing with you and your complete ignorance of your subject nor your arrogance of personality. Go away. Themoodyblue (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Watch it Themoodyblue. The issue has been abundantly addressed, and it doesn't belong on this page. Make yourself comfortable with Wikipedia:No personal attacks before posting on Wikipedia again. --Jmundo (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth definition: The definition of Estado Libre Asociado deserves more explanation. Many people believe in this political status and the unincorporated territory definition only reflects the point of view of the people that believe in the statehood. Pr4ever believes in the statehood , I respect his ideas but when Luis Munoz Marin created the commonwealth or ELA , the goal was a alternative political status and the president Truman had aproved this new political status. This political status will be developed in the future but he began this alternative political status. This article can't reflect only the point of view of the people that believe in the statehood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtorre222 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph cleanup

I have simplified the first paragraph, removing superfluous POV content, as well as the clearly incorrect statement that the NPP is closely aligned to the GOP.

First of all, the NPP is not aligned to any national party. While two of the Governors it has elected, Ferré and Fortuño, are Republicans, two of the Governors it has elected, Romero and Rosselló, are Democrats. Fortuño's running mate, Pedro Pierluisi, as well as the person he appointed as his first in line of succession, Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock, are Democrats! The excised statement was totally incorrect.

Second, consensus within multiple Puerto Rico-related articles in Wikipedia is that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. Several of the excised statements are totally incorrect. Unincorporated territories DO have governors (Guam and the USVI, for example), and Puerto Rico is not the only non-state Commonwealth in the US (do not forget the CNMI).

Before trying to reinsert extraneous or superfluous material in the first graph, editors should seek consensus through a discussion in this page! Pr4ever (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my concerns. --Kevin W. 05:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

- Pr4ever and Kevin, the territories that you name do have governors, but none are autonomous, as PR is, especially the USVI, Guam or Saipan. The structure of the CNMI is similar, but they do not possess the same status as PR does, and cannot independently establish a referendum on their future status, as PR can. That is one reason that PR's status in the union continues to be a controversy between independence and statehood. No other US territory has the autonomy for the statehood v. independence issue to be an issue, nor can any other territory vote, essentially for either full union or seccesion should their fully autonomous government choose to put the issue to a vote. If that were to happen, the Federal Government of the United States would have no say about it what so ever. Only PR has the autonomous authority to have a referendum on the issue that would have any binding credence. That autonomy is what makes PR a unique political entity with the US Union, and the governor's role a unique one.

While I agree that consensus is important, you pronouncing that we do or do not have one is simply not authoritative. Also, there is something else that is just as important as consensus - accuracy. What you are claiming to be the "facts" is simply inaccurate. Please do your political science homework and research and find out what the facts are before you go gutting someone else's contribution. Any consensus must be one that agrees on the accurate facts. With all due respect, your opinion does not constitute a consensus simply because you say so. Themoodyblue (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pr4ever is talking about consensus in the Puerto Rican related articles. Fact: the territorial clause gives the United States Congress the final power over every territory of the United States. Fact: U.S. Congress allowed Puerto Rico to draft its own Constitution which was approved and modified by the US Congress. More facts and external sources can be found at Political status of Puerto Rico or Puerto Rico where this discussion belong. --Jmundo (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nine months after the previous discussion, an anonymous contributor started messing again with this first paragraph. It is not a matter of what statehooders think. While it is a fact that "Commonwealth of PR" is the name of the body politic, "commonwealth" is not the name of the political relationship. KY, VA, PA & MA are also "Commonwealths" but they are states in a legal sense. The Northern Marianas Islands are also called a "Commonwealth" but they, as PR, are an unincorporated territory. That is not a statehooder's opinion, but the opinion of the House Committee on Resources, and the US Justice Department under Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama administrations. Pr4ever (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The chief of state of Canada is the Queen Elizabeth , Canada is a commonwealth and it isn't a territory of United Kingdom. The status of Puerto Rico is object of debate, but Harry Truman , the congress of 1952 , the United Nations in 1952 , and the people of Puerto Rico decided that the Commowealth of Puerto Rico isn't a colony of United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.147.83 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

While I fully agree that references to Puerto Rico's political status are unnecessary in this paragraph and therefore fully support the most recent, and wise, edit, I would like to clarify the comment that precedes this one. Luis Muñoz Marín stated in Congress that the 1950-52 constitutional drafting/approval process did not constitute a change in the status or relationship. Thus, the Insular Cases, as the Justice Department under every president for almost a quarter century, and the relevant congressional committees have stated unanimously. BTW, I would suggest you register and sign your comments. Pr4ever (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

PRSSA info removal

The removal of the historical information regarding the Governor's leadership role in the Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association is inapproppriate, since that facet of his life is one he mentions often, the information about his incursion in politics very early in life dispels the mistaken impression that he "parachuted" into public life after a successful business career, and that organization was the one that produced some of the most prominent members of his current inner circle, including Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock, deputy Secretary of State José Rodriguez Suarez, communications czar Francisco Cimadevilla, chief of staff Marcos Rodriguez Ema, among others. Pr4ever (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

National aspirations 2012?

Gov. Fortuño was mentioned this week by a reputable Newsweek blogger and a well-known Republican figure, Grover Norquist, as a fascinating long-shot potential member of the 2012 Republican ticket.

Due to its noteworthiness, I have placed a reference to this in the introductory paragraph, since this is not a locally-generated possibility but one that appears in a reputable blog, citing a reputable national Republican figure.

I admit that this is as long a shot as talk four years ago that our nation would have in the foreseable future an African-American president! Pr4ever (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/25/absurdly-premature-2012-watch-vol-2-the-governor-of-puerto-rico-for-president.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.68.163 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The addition is speculation and should not be in the introduction as it gives undue weight to one isolated speculation. It's not the view of the majority. To be in the introduction statements should be a concise overview of the article, they should serve both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The addition does neither, as the subject matter is not even further discussed in the article proper as it should be. I have moved the topic to the body of the article where it best fits in terms of flow and relevance.

The article statement also added that "reputable national analysts" are the ones who mentioned Fortuño as a potential nominee; but Newsweek blogger Andrew Romano himself states that he was reporting on what he had heard Grover Norquist say. It is thus quite incorrect to state "by reputable national analysts" when in reality it's only one. As a result I also removed the phrase "by reputable national analysts" as this statement is not additionally sourced. Mercy11 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! Pr4ever (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

First, I strongly suggest that inserrted material which has stood the test of time and multiple editors not be removed without ample discussion. Having said that, in a jurisdiction in which the overriding issue is the fesolution of its political status problem, being the co-founder and second president of an organization that deals with that precise issue, which has stood the test of time over 30 years, which has produced the mainstream governmental leaders (a Governor, A Secretary of State, two members of Congress, a Senate President, etc) and which, in fact, is holding elections this weekend, is an acci=omplishment worthy of being noted in an infobox. There are no set rules for particular infoboxes. Once again, let's talk before we strike material that has stood the test of time and multiple editors.Pr4ever (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the PRSSA has to do with the political status issue, but the infobox is not an infobox about political status. PRSSA offices are not popularly-elected offices; the PRSSA entry in the governor infobox violates WP:SOAP. The fact that PPRSSA has done all of those wonderful things should not obfuscate the minds of those making entries into the governor infobox. Those PRSSA accomplishments may be worthy of mentioning in, say, a PRSSA infobox, but not in a governor infobox. And yes, there are set rules for particular infoboxes: [2], which is why I also removed the Prez entry from the infobox - and also justified fully. BTW, I've taken the liberty of adding a header to this section since you didn't and suspect this is what you intended. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Curtailing civil liberties"

I removed the following paragraph:

Curtailing civil liberties

While trying to deal with the worst economic situation in the island since 1930s', Governor Fortuño is trying to keep the civil liberties in the country with little success. On June 30, 2010 a group of UPR students were to strike in the legislative house. The group of students were stopped by a group of police men equipped with gases, pepper sprays and big batons. The press was shut out of the legislative house with the students in a forcedly manner showing no respect for the free press.

First of all, the source is an op-ed, not an objective source.

Second, the paragraph repeatedly violates NPOV. While I believe that the recession that started in March 2006 is "the worst economic situation since 1930s' " (sic), it is simply a point of view that the author of the paragraph and I share. The members of the public were not merely "UPR students". While that sounds nice and sweet, the sponsors included "Juventud Socialista" and "Movimiento Socialista de Trabajadores" or Socialist Youth and the Socialist Workers Movement (Yes, Virginia, the Cold War has not entirely ended in PR!). It is a matter of discussion who struck first. Photos were published of a spray being directed at police, presumably mace, seconds before the meleé started. Two citizens arrested had knapsacks full of rocks (and they probably were not rock collectors or geology majors at UPR!)

Third, if "the press was shut out of the legislative house" (sic), it has nothing to do with Fortuño because legislative rules and enforcement are the purview of legislative leadership.

A Wikipedia entry of a very contemporary developing and politically controversial news story has to be especially neutral and well-sourced. This graf was not. Pr4ever (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC

Although I understand your point, you make a lot of other points which are completely off track. First of all, there is no such group in PR with such an uncolorful name as "Juventud Socialista". However, there is the "Movimiento Socialista de Trabajadores", who have a youth organization who have also a STUDENT chapter. So yes, we were all students there (except for the old ladies that the police beat up indiscriminately). It is VERY WELL documented that the police struck first, when they beat up the student press inside the legislature, completely unprovoked. Yes, students fired mace at the police, but maybe you didnt notice the police HITTING THEM WITH NIGHTSTICKS? Are they supposed to drop their pants and let the police "stick it to them" literally?

Also, for all you boast of objectivity, there is absolutely NO PROOF anyone had rocks there. Nobody saw them EVER; that was part of the police report to the press, and the very press denied rocks were ever thrown. That is also well documented. Of course, you will deny it, cuz it doesnt help your case to say otherwise.

The press was not neutral documenting the incident, because it was OBVIOUS what was happening. Of course, people like you who are paid by the "Progressive" (more like Medievalist) Party have to deny it. It's your job. --- a puertorrican (who was actually THERE, unlike some other people I can mention...)

Unemployment rate in context

While during the current recession, unemployment has grown by half in PR (from the 10-11 pct range to the 15-16 pct range), it has doubled nationally (from the 4-5 pct range to the 9-10 pct range). Consensus language is in order to put PR's unemployment rate in context. Pr4ever (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Where the numbers are coming from? The problem is not consensus but lack of sources (wp:v). I don't negate the fact that unemployment has risen, but the stats (ex.100% above the national jobless rate) are not statically possible. --Jmundo (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Description of Puerto Rico

It is not irrelevant to state that subject is Governor of Puerto Rico, a territory of the US. First, it is factually correct. Second, for a casual reader, it may provide information that he/she did not know. Third, it differentiates the subject's role from that of other persons who hold the title of "Governor", such as governors of states, governors of Federal Reserve Banks, etc. Pr4ever (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If we wish to be fully inclusive, we can describe the subject of the article as "Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States of America", which provides the name of the body politic and describes its relationship with the US. Pr4ever (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good compromise.The Original Historygeek (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

2012 Presidential Speculation

Are Puerto Ricans considered eligible to run for President under the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution? PR is not a state, so I could see why such a presidential run might be controversial. Has the Supreme Court taken up the issue? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

He stands on more solid ground regarding the natural-born requirement (he became a citizen as a matter of birth requiring no further documentation than a birth certificate) than on the residency requirement "within the United States", rather than "in" the U.S. Does that mean that you have to live in a state, or within the nation, which would include DC, the territories and wherever the flag flies?Pr4ever (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Though you will undoubtedly get a response, be aware that:

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Luis Fortuño article.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• • I think we could improve the Luis Fortuño article by clarifying whether he legally can or can't run. Right now the article includes the speculation about a 2012 run, but doesn't clarify what the law or the Supreme Court has to say on the matter. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a fine line to walk and, imo, is best not to go there. See also: THIS. Expanding on something that is speculation to start with, is not encyclopedic. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Northeast Ecological Corridor

I have removed a recent edit, based on a Sierra Club link (one party in a very public controversy) that states that a former governor designated the corridor, and that Fortuño undesignated it in order to facilitate widespread development. As a matter of fact, Fortuño expanded the protected area, from 3,000 to over 4,500 acres, now is protecting all rivers flowing from nearby El Yunque National Forest, connects that Forest with the expanded protected areas and does allow very minimal eco-lodge type low-impact development in some parts of the Reserva del Este. Any inclusion of this issue should be drafted in NPOV fashion and sources should not be limited to one advocate organization. Pr4ever (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference?--Ljvillanueva (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see http://www.jp.gobierno.pr/Portal_JP/Portals/0/Informate/ComunicadosPrensa/Tabla%20Gran%20Reserva-%20áreas%20y%20cuerdas.PDF Pr4ever (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Gov. Fortuno's Inauguration.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gov. Fortuno's Inauguration.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rumored potential candidacy for national office

The sentence

However, his most recent denial does not entirely close the door on national candidacies in 2012 and cannot be considered Shermanesque

Seems to be pointless. This is an opinion and should just point at the fact that he said he won't run. I've edited it, please comment (and justify) if you think it should stay. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't quibble with your plausible interpretation of Fortuño's denial in the El Nuevo Día interview you linked to the article, but his "no intereso...no pienso en esas cosas" denial is not Shermanesque. He did not say "Si me lo ofrecen, lo rechazaría de plano" and I think the fact that he has not made a Shermanesque statement after so much recurring speculation thus far is a relevant fact in this section of his article. But I'll let sleeping dogs lie! Pr4ever (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cost of the Tax Cuts

There's a random line in this article dealing with Fortuno's large tax cuts that says "the average yearly cost of the tax cuts amounts to $1.2 billion." This is actually lost government revenue. Referring to it as a "cost" without clarifying who pays it is very confusing, especially when government spending is a huge issue. You don't "pay for" lost revenue. The $1.2 billion in question actually goes back to the people, so the line in question should at the very least read that "the average yearly cost of the tax cuts TO GOVERNMENT amounts to $1.2 billion." EGarrett01 (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Party name translation

Several of the top leaders of Puerto Rico's governing party (NPP) and its government, including Gov. Luis Fortuño, the party president, and Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock, the party's chief spokesperson on the U.S. mainland, translate "Partido Nuevo Progresista" as "New Party for Progress", rather than "New Progressive Party". They have a point because in 1967 (year of the nationally bipartisan NPP's foundation by a Republican leader) Spanish, "progresista" referred to being in favor of "progress", while the English word "progressive" in 2012 is almost synonimous to "liberal". This, New Party for Progress is a more accurate translation of "Partido Nuevo Progresista", since the NPP is a party that includes both Republican conservatives, such as Fortuño, as well as Democratic moderates, such as McClintock and Congressman Pedro Pierluisi.

Is there a source for this? --Ljvillanueva (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wall St. Journal uses it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204789304578086783236445910.html?mod=googlenews_wsj&_nocache=1351819428060articleTabs=article&user=welcome&mg=id-wsj

NPP or PNP?

This guy seems to be a member of two parties, both are all over the article. --79.223.3.91 (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I did an Internet search on both "PNP" and "NPP", both as related to the "Puerto Rico" string. They returned 1,680,000 hits for "PNP" vs. 368,000 hits for "NPP" within the Internet's English literature. As such, I have standardized references to the party's abbreviated name to "PNP". My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

If it's an article in English, the correct abbreviation for New Progressive Party or New Party for Progress (the translation that party president Fortuño uses) is NPP. If the article is in Spanish, the correct abbreviation for Partido Nuevo Progresista would be PNP.Pr4ever (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)