Talk:José Celso Barbosa

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

El Tiempo[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, El Tiempo was NOT the first bilingual paper in Puerto Rico. There was a minor paper called "La Bandera Americana" in Mayagüez that was bilingual (at least sometimes) and was printed as early as 1899. Any further proof? Demf 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The main thing here is, that until it can be proven with a verifiable source that "La Bandera Americana" was the first bilingual paper in Puerto Rico, "El Tiempo" will remain to be recognized as such. Tony the Marine 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm... I know where to get microfilms of both, but that is not the point... the point is having the reference to back either claim (and I only mention it here because I don't dare to dispute the other without proof of my own). The quoted web page you have in the article reads almost verbatim like the preamble to a bill or law honoring Barbosa (and those have to be taken with a grain of salt, given the quality of our Legislature...) It mentions "El Tiempo", but does not elaborate on its bilingual status. Save a quoted reference, we're back to square one.
Antonio S. Pedreira wrote a long article (almost book-length) telling the history of journalism in Puerto Rico. He probably wrote about El Tiempo, but I'm not sure if he mentioned La Bandera, or a few others from the western side of Puerto Rico, for that matter, because many of these efforts at journalism were isolated and regional in nature, given the poor communications in the island at the time. You would write whatever you wanted and chances are only your neighbors in town knew about it. Yet here at UPR-Rio Piedras there are copies of handwritten "newspapers" ("El Sombrero" from Vega Alta comes to mind) that had more public exposure, at least from a historical standpoint. Someday... someday I'll check on both claims... Demf 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My guess would be that "El Tiempo" was most likely the first national bilingual newspaer where maybe "La Bandera Americana" could have been the first regional Bilingual newspaper. If you can upload a copy from the microfilm let me know and I'm sure that we will be able to use it. Tony the Marine 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Father of the Movement[edit]

He became known as the "Father of the Statehood for Puerto Rico" movement.

Because of the quote marks, this reads as "[Barbosa] became known as a movement." My edit seeks to remedy this. ForDorothy 10:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think these two articles should be merged. The post office article probably won't be expanded anymore than it already is. Also, the reference to the Bill's use of Wikipedia material is more appropriate in the talk page. I know there's a template for that around here somewhere. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 03:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recommend putting history into Notes[edit]

It's really unusual to have so much legislative history in the content of a Recognitions Section, which is usually devoted to the result. Recommend putting the following in a Note, if editors want to keep it:- <<The Act was introduced by the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to the United States House of Representatives Luis Fortuño on July 26, 2005. It was approved by the House of Representatives on March 28, 2006 and the Senate on July 20, 2006.[1][2][3]

Also, it does not seem appropriate to use article space for content to show that Wikipedia has influence, as in the following. That's great for the editor, but is not so related to Barbosa himself: <<The "Background" section of the Congressional Record contained a verbatim copy of the biography of Barbosa as hosted and published on Wikipedia.[4] Said version of Barbosa's biography was edited and posted on March 25, 2006.[5][1][2][3]

>> I would recommend that this be deleted or put in a Note.Parkwells (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Reply[reply]


Add to Lead[edit]

What an impressive man! I added more to the Lead to highlight his political positions, which are generally given priority in bio articles of this type. Also showed the influence of his serving in the Cabinet for so long in these early years of the US administration. He had many firsts in his life - an inspiration.Parkwells (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Lead says that he was a sociologist, but I don't see anything in the content/cites of the main article that supports that. Can someone help me with that? Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All these sources appear to go back to your original article, Tony, which simply states he was a sociologist, without recounting why he was considered so. There still is nothing to support saying he was a sociologist. Did he conduct studies of provision of health care in rural areas, for instance, or of the state of health of sections of the population? The Talk section above for merging the article on the bill designating the post office in his name notes that your article was quoted in teh bill, so quoting the bill (which repeats the article) does not provide another source for asserting that he was a sociologist. Parkwells (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]