Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:47, 29 December 2009

Puerto Rico Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from Isabel González appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,600 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that in 1902, Isabel Gonzalez, a single Puerto Rican mother, challenged the United States government and helped pave the way for all Puerto Ricans to be recognized as U.S. citizens? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/September.

Please do not rewrite to express POV

First, Puerto Rico was "not" conquered by the United States. It was invaded by the United States and ceded by Spain. Militarily the Puerto Rican Campaign was inconclusive since a cease fire was declared.

Second, It is of common knowledge that if the protections of the United States Constitution do not apply it would also include the rights of citizenship.

Third, Do not delete a complete section which leads into the understanding of the "Downes v. Bidwell" case of 1901" which in turn is imperative to the understanding of the "Gonzalez v Williams" case.

Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no "POV" here nor has the article been "rewritten". I come to the article armed solely with my knowledge of US history and see a substantial number of details irrelevant to an article about Isabel Gonzalez. I have no objection to your interpretation of how Puerto Rico came into US hands, but it seems relevant to mention that there was a war that took place in that context. The article, as written contains numerous claims of imperialism, which are not only contested but are not relevant here and have been removed. Details regarding name changes to "Porto Rico" and back to "Puerto Rico" do not appear relevant to the discussion of citizenship for Isabel Gonzalez. Alansohn (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hello Alansohn, I do not mind your deletion of the word "imperialism", however it is a fact and not my interpretation of how Puerto Rico came into US hands. I'm surprised that you who are interested in history will fail to accept the fact that the United States was in an expansionism process during that period which we historians call imperialism.

However, I will post once again the section which you have continue to delete. It is important for the reader to understand why in the "Gonzalez V William" case "Puerto Rico" was referred to as "Porto Rico" and that it is not a typo. It is also important for the reader to understand the restrictions imposed by the United States on the commercial and shipping rights of Puerto Ricans which led to the "Downes v. Bidwell" case of 1901" which in turn influenced the "Gonzalez v Williams". I know that you are well intended and good faith so let's avoid an unwanted edit-war. Take care 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Tony the Marine (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, that period in US history is known for great debates against imperialism and trusts, and with great internal dissent, including two presidents murdered. Almost any historic academic work on the USA at the period defines it as imperialism, not as a value judgment, but as analogous to the same process in Europe, and an example of the USA coming of age as a nation after a brutal Civil War. Furthermore, the mentions of imperialism come form the source, if you want to contest them, please present sources that illustrate that there is a debate around this view. If there is, am afraid it is probably a fringe view, as the historical view of the period, regardless of school of historical thought, is that it was a period of imperialism. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider change the article name

Hello. How do you react to the idea of renaming the article to Gonzales v. Williams, Isabel Gonzalez case, or some other this that reflects the fact that this is not really a biography, but instead, and article about a landmark legal case?

Isabel Gonzalez, as a subject, is not notable on herself. Or better put, she is notable for her participation in just one event.

Indeed, I believe the only change necessary on the article text would be the first sentence, that instead of reading

Isabel Gonzalez (born c. 1882) was a young, pregnant, single Puerto Rican mother who helped pave the way for Puerto Ricans to be given United States citizenship ...

would be more like

Gonzales v. Williams was a landmark legal case that helped pave the way for Puerto Ricans to be given United States citizenship ...

Thoughts? --Damiens.rf 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't agree with a change of tittle. The article is intended to be about Isabel Gonzalez, a brave courageous young lady who stood her ground against the United States Government and the circumstances surrounding her which led to the landmark legal case Gonzales v. Williams that helped pave the way for Puerto Ricans to be given United States citizenship. Gonzalez was not a simple participant in the Gonzales v. Williams case, she was the Gonzales v. Williams case. Without her and her determination to fight an injustice there would have been no Gonzales v. Williams case. She was the Puerto Rican Rosa Parks, who continued to be an activist for Puerto Rican rights, but who is little known because her story is one among many which have fallen into the cracks of history only to be forgotten. There already is a redirect for those who only want focus on the case. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Do you guys suggest some source for improving the biographical aspects of this article? --Damiens.rf 21:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The articles should cover her continued activism for Puerto Rican rights. Having not knowing about the matter and reading the current article, I got the opinion that she was a person notable for a participation in just one event. --Damiens.rf 13:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

None the less a notable person whose actions would be the begining of a chain reaction which would eventually affect the lives of millions of people. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Damiens, in any case, we might have to fork the article into one biographical article and another for the case. She is little-know politically, but not histographically, and her continued activism before and after the case warrant a biographical focus, as is customary when people become notable for one event but then enjoy continued notability.--Cerejota (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Would you guys support this fork? How should the non-bio article be called? Gonzales v. Williams? --Damiens.rf 03:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My main concern here is that the bio. of Isabel Gonzalez should not be decimated to an extent that it would end up in a AfD. For the non-bio article, Gonzales v. Williams would be fine. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure the fork is needed at this point, but it might later. I am not opposed in principle. However, before the forking, happens, I think the encyclopedic mission is better achieved by a biographical focus, rather than by case-law focus. I would support, as of now, a redirect of the case name to this article, in that spirit. --Cerejota (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Cerejota. I believe that would be the proper approach. A redirect to the case name was created in anticipation that there would be some people who would want to only focus on the case, thereby as the saying goes, covering all the bases. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree a split is feasible, but only if someone is going to do a good job of an article about the law case. I have marked Gonzales v. Williams with {{R with possibilities}}. --John Vandenberg 06:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class Puerto Rico articles
• Low-importance Puerto Rico articles
• Start-Class Puerto Rico articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles