| Revision as of 19:01, 12 February 2013 editRenamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc (talk | contribs)37,368 edits →DR talk: sensible; vh?← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:52, 12 February 2013 edit undoTheVirginiaHistorian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers16,945 editsm →DR talk: tweekNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 541: | Line 541: | ||
| :::::Then isn't the lede sufficient as is? That the U.S. consists of at least the fifty states and federal district is not in dispute, and it states this. It then also says the U.S. "also possesses" territories. The specifics of that are left until later in the article, where they could perhaps be more ably handled with sources and commentary than they are now, but the lede seems already sufficient for what is being proposed. --] (]) 17:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | :::::Then isn't the lede sufficient as is? That the U.S. consists of at least the fifty states and federal district is not in dispute, and it states this. It then also says the U.S. "also possesses" territories. The specifics of that are left until later in the article, where they could perhaps be more ably handled with sources and commentary than they are now, but the lede seems already sufficient for what is being proposed. --] (]) 17:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Makes sense. I'd be interested in VH's response to that. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 19:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | ::::::Makes sense. I'd be interested in VH's response to that. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 19:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::I believe we are agreed. Let me see if I can restate our agreement. For this next draft, I replaced the participle "including" with "which includes" to convey an open-ended category as intended, "nobody's excluding anything". Lead article sentence to read, ''"The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly called the United States (US or U.S.) and America, is a federal constitutional republic which includes fifty states and a federal district." The country is situated mostly in central North America, ... '' | |||
| ::'''''' "Some sources style the official U.S. as the judicially “incorporated” territory of 50 states, the District and Palmyra Atoll.” -- Golbez et al, will replace the tertiary and primary sources of challenged editor interpretation with a direct quote from a secondary source with its date of publication. | |||
| ::'''''' "Some sources style the official U.S. as the congressionally "incorporated" 50 states, the District and five territories. (1) See “Welcome to the United States:”, 2007 p.77. ISBN 978-0-16078-733-1, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” (2) See also, Bartholomew H. Sparrow, coeditor in Sanford Levinson’s anthology, “ , 2005, p.2323, ISBN 978-0-74254-984-5. 'At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.' " | |||
| :: _ _ I accept Mendaliv's guidance, "for the purposes of the lede, we must be simple and straightforward." and statements should be "supported by a reasonable selection of the best secondary sources from both sides." That is the basis of my agreement. | |||
| :: _ _ In the notes, I made the key distinction of judicial incorporation of place found in the 1901-1904 Insular Cases versus congressional incorporation of citizens as enacted in territory organic acts adjudicated in Supreme Court decisions for the fifty years since 1962. ] (]) 19:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:52, 12 February 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1. How did the article get the way it is?
2. How about Switzerland?
Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Misplaced Pages articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence.
| |||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization: |
| This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The religion section is outdated
Please update religion section with most current data as in the "Religion in the United States" wikipedia article. The 2007 data is now out of date and must be replaced with the 2012 data.
Example:
The U.S. Census does not ask about religion. Various groups have conducted surveys to determine approximate percentages of those affiliated with each religious group. Some surveys ask people to self-identify, while others calculate church memberships. The first table below represents the ranges that have been found.
- Christianity: (59.9% to 78.4%)
- Unaffiliated, including atheist or agnostic (15.0% to 37.3%)
- Judaism (1.2% to 2.2%)
- Islam (0.6%)
- Buddhism (0.5% to 0.9%)
- Hinduism (0.4%)
- Other (1.2% to 1.4%)
| Affiliation | % of U.S. population | |
|---|---|---|
| Christian | 73 | 73 |
| Protestant | 48 | 48 |
| Evangelical Protestant | 19 | 19 |
| Mainline Protestant | 15 | 15 |
| Black church | 8 | 8 |
| Catholic | 22 | 22 |
| Mormon | 2 | 2 |
| Eastern Orthodox | 1 | 1 |
| Other Faith | 6 | 6 |
| Unaffiliated | 19.6 | 19.6 |
| Nothing in particular | 13.9 | 13.9 |
| Agnostic | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Atheist | 2.4 | 2.4 |
| Don't know/refused answer | 2 | 2 |
| Total | 100 | 100 |
Territory in congress = incorporation
- Editors have mistakenly concluded that, * territorial Members of Congress debating but not voting * means Congress is NOT incorporating the territories of Northern Marianas, Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.
- _ _ But THAT is not the * United States * history of territories. On April 23, 1784, a year after the Revolution formally ended, Congress provided for territories “to have a representative on the floor of Congress, with the right of debating but not of voting.” Though Jefferson wrote the measure, the Virginia delegation voted against it. But just as with territories and states today, the State of Virginia was bound by acts of congress, because it was united into a federal republic. See, |History of the Ordinance of 1787, p.7-8.
- _ _ Editors have mistakenly said that, since territories are bound by acts of Congress, they are colonial, but in a federal republic, states and territories are equivalently required to conform their local legislation to the national. That is a function of the federal district courts in each state, and likewise, there is an Article III federal district court established for each of the territories with powers of judicial review.
- _ _ So it is, the REPRSENTATION for territories in the U.S. Congress is another indication of Congressional incorporation of the territories, INTO the federal republic AND allowing for eventual statehood. It is yet another way in which U.S. territories of 2013 are incorporated parts of a federal republic, unrelated to the history of overseas territories found in United Kingdom. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but this is a non sequitur. Representation in Congress is not an indication of incorporation. Please provide any evidence for this other than from your fertile imagination. older ≠ wiser 11:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- For example, the Philippines were represented, and so far as I can tell were not considered incorporated. The fact that they became independent also indicates that, since we tend to take incorporation as a perpetual state so long as the Constitution remains in effect. Furthermore, if that's the case, then that goes counter to the whole Balzac issue, since Puerto Rico has had a delegate in congress since 1901 - before it was even termed unincorporated, and long before the changes that TVH claims made Puerto Rico de facto incorporated, which I think he pegs in the 1950s or thereabouts. --Golbez (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but this is a non sequitur. Representation in Congress is not an indication of incorporation. Please provide any evidence for this other than from your fertile imagination. older ≠ wiser 11:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome to the discussion. Please read the linked sources listed above here at Talk at "include territories" secondary sources and "include territories" government publications for a sourced introduction to the subject 'United States', topic 'extent of U.S. federal republic'.
- _ _ All incorporated territories as they were organized by Congress, equally without discrimination throughout U.S. history, have been given representation on the floor of Congress. Editors previously argued that territories are NOT incorporated because territory Members of Congress do not vote at rollcall. In addition to previous citations and quotes, my post gives a linked source to show that particular misrepresentation is not so.
- _ _ It is not my imagination that Ohio, which had representation on the floor without a rollcall vote, was incorporated into the U.S. federal republic before statehood. Philippines were not incorporated by congressional organic act making U.S. citizens, which the Court has ruled means irrevocable union with a territory. Philippinos administered by the U.S.G. were U.S nationals until 1934, when that status was revoked. Since 2003, Philippine citizens can maintain joint U.S. citizenship.
- _ _ It is not that representation in Congress is sufficient for incorporation, it is an indication of incorporation. AND territorial non-rollcall voting cannot mean there is not incorporation. As held in the frequently cited but little read Rassmussen case, U.S. citizenship with congressional organic act incorporates a place into the U.S. federal republic, even without explicit congressional "incorporation", as in the case of "unincorporated" Alaska ruled "incorporated" by the Supreme Court because U.S. citizenship was extended by Congress, that was its INTENT, to incorporate it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- "It is an indication of incorporation."? But the Philippines were represented, did that indicate incorporation? Are you saying that it's a combination: If you have birthright citizenship (or nationality in the case of American Samoa) AND representation, then you are de facto incorporated? You realize that if this is your argument you need to find a source stating exactly that, otherwise this is original research. --Golbez (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- 1. Federal Courts hold that Congress extending U.S. citizenship incorporates the territory beginning with Alaska at Rassmussen. Once citizenship is granted it is held as irrevocable, and courts have expanded constitutional provisions in territories beyond those explicitly granted in congressional organic acts incorporating territories. Lots of sources, see Buzity posts. I'll work up a "include territories" by court cases section of sources.
- 2. Representation in Congress -- in the same way all incorporated territories which have been made into states have had, -- does NOT indicate a territory is not incorporated as previous editors have postulated. RATHER it is an indication of incorporation, as is congressional organic law establishing three-branch republican government, establishment of Article III federal courts superior to DC's, establishing U.S. tax districts, and extending U.S. citizenship.
- 3. U.S. citizens may become Samoans, Samoans may become irrevocably U.S. citizens as their children, and eligible wives. Otherwise Samoans are native-born U.S. nationals. Interesting case before the Supreme Court this term, relating to self-determination and extension of the constitution. Samoan chiefs agreed to become U.S. nationals providing for hereditarily based tribal communal land ownership. Plaintiff wants to apply at a U.S. Court House in Samoa for citizenship in a year. Plaintiff does not intend to overthrow local Samoan custom and law, in ownership or representation, which is not one-man-one-vote.
- 4. So, lots of sources to include, Northern Marianas, Guam, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. -- Are we only Samoa away from agreement? Maybe Samoa needs qualifying -- as the last overseas territory of U.S. nationals, with local autonomous government equivalent to states, and Congressional territorial representation, lacking only a Samoan plebiscite to accept full incorporation with U.S. citizenship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Correction. While Torreuella said that the Supreme Court in deciding whether or not the territories of Alaska and Hawaii became incorporated, it relied on the granting of citizenship to their inhabitants, he says it reversed that test when it considered Puerto Rico (p. 326). Alaska and Hawaii territories were then considered incorporated into the U.S. because those were the terms of the treaties which under U.S. (unlike English law) has the same force as an act of Congress. Since they are now states however, that is now moot. ("The total disregard by Taft of Rassmussen and Mankichi placed a mantle of legality over an act of judicial usurpation of legislative intent in granting U.S. citizenship to the inhabitants".) TFD (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Territory representation in congress is not incorporation.
- How Incorporation Is Achieved: The Supreme Court Has Defined and Recognized The Existence of a Process That Leads To Incorporation.
- Given the various types of territories that the United States has incorporated (Northwest Territory already owned since the Articles of Confederation; California, Mexico by war; Florida by purchase; etc), throughout several decisions the court has established a three stage process to incorporate a territory like Puerto Rico, which in its own words in Delima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 210 (1901) :
- “The question now to be considered relates to territories previously subject to the acknowledged jurisdiction of another sovereign, such as was Florida to the Crown of Spain. And on this subject we have the most explicit proof that the understanding of our public functionaries is that the government and laws of the United States do not extend to such territory by the mere act of cession.”.
- It is not the same to incorporate a contiguous territory than it is to incorporate a distant territory. Neither is it the same to incorporate a distant, yet sparsely populous territory, than a distant and populous territory. In evaluating the different circumstances of different territories, that court has produced three requirements for incorporation. First, there must be affinity between the culture of the people of the territory and the culture and principles behind the U.S. Constitution. Second, U.S. Citizenship must be granted. Third, and most conclusive, the “privileges and immunities" clause is then extended to the People of the Territory.
- First, Cultural Affinity. The Insular Cases establish this principle in a very clear setting. In Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 279-283, (1901))
- Second: Extension of U.S. Citizenship.
- As part of the process of incorporation, also in Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 254, (1901))it was said that the extension of U.S. Citizenship is essential.
- Third: The Extension of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution.
- In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 321 (1901) the first mention of incorporation is made in the following paragraph by Mr. Justice Brown:
- In view of this it cannot, it seems to me, be doubted that the United States continued to be composed of states and territories, all forming an integral part thereof and incorporated therein, as was the case prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Subsequently, the territory now embraced in the state of Tennessee was ceded to the United States by the state of North Carolina. In order to insure the rights of the native inhabitants, it was expressly stipulated that the inhabitants of the ceded territory should enjoy all the rights, privileges, benefits, and advantages set forth in the ordinance 'of the late Congress for the government of the western territory of the United States.' (Our emphasis).
- Also in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 252 (1901) it was said:
- "Owing to a new war between England and France being upon the point of breaking out, there was need for haste in the negotiations, and Mr. Livingston took the responsibility of disobeying his (Mr. Jefferson's) instructions, and, probably owing to the insistence of Bonaparte, consented to the 3d article of the treaty (with France to acquire the territory of Louisiana), which provided that 'the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.' (Our emphasis)
- This evidently committed the government to the ultimate, but not to the immediate, admission of Louisiana as a state....” (Our emphasis).
- Further into Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 256 (1901) Justice Brown says:
- "The same construction was adhered to in the treaty with Spain for the purchase of Florida (8 Stat. at L. 252) the 6th article of which provided that the inhabitants should 'be incorporated into the Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution;"
- Here we see that “the inhabitants should be incorporated.” In Rassmussen v. The United States (197 U.S. 516, 522 (1905)), the same principle is exposed:
- “The treaty concerning Alaska, instead of exhibiting, as did the treaty respecting the Philippine Islands, the determination to reserve the question of the status of the acquired territory for ulterior action by Congress, manifested a contrary intention, since it is therein expressly declared, in article 3, that:
- The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion.
- This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary."
- The Constitution of the United States was constructed to create a Union of Citizens, making it obvious that the incorporation of U.S. Citizens in a territory produces the incorporation of the territory.
- Privileges and Immunities Clause and/or the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been extended to the inhabitants and/or citizens of the U.S. territories by the U.S. Congress and/or the federal courts. --Buzity (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Annexed, Incorporated, Admitted has not the same meaning.
- The land of the territoried are annexed to the U.S. The inhabitants of the territories are incorporated to the to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States. The territories are admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state.
- With Hawaii came the Palmyra Atoll which had been annexed by the U.S. in 1859 but later abandoned, then later claimed by Hawaii.
- As to the first, recall that under the Insular Cases doctrine, the peoples of so-called unincorporated territories, may be denied the full panoply of rights, privileges, and immunities enjoyed by citizens and the inhabitants of incorporated territories. Lawson & Sloane --Buzity (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S.Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.
- Welcome to the United States A Guide for New Immigrants Pages 77
- This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology have been expressed by the U.S. Government, U.S. Congress, Federal Laws, U.S. Presidents though Executive Orders and U.S. Courts. --Buzity (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe is time to get the help of an Arbitration Committee to assisted us to reach an agreement! --Buzity (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- That is all very fascinating, but has no bearing on the article. You need to show that a secondary source has concluded that the criteria set out in Downes vs Bidwell (1901) means that Puerto Rico has since been incorporated. As I pointed out, the criteria changed in Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922), when Taft said, "Had Congress intended to take the important step of changing the treaty status of Porto Rico by incorporating it into the Union, it is reasonable to suppose that it would have done so by the plain declaration, and would not have left it to mere inference." Even if the U.S. were to unilaterally incorporate its territories, which is highly unlikely, you would need to show that it was accepted under international law. TFD (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- 1. Puerto Ricans CHOOSE an economically advantageous “commonwealth”. Gary Lawson and Robert D. Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, 2009, pp. 1164-5, Puerto Rico’s Legal status reconsidered. “In substantial part, drove Puerto Rico’s decision to forego both statehood and independence in favor of the intermediate status of associated statehood.”
- 2. By international law, “states are generally free as to the manner … meet their international obligations”. “Direct reception” of a population is (a) full citizenship and (b) representation in the national legislature, by free association, "legislation, common law, or administrative action. for each state to determine for itself according to its own constitutional practices.” (p.1159).
- 3. “Puerto Rico manifestly … enjoys virtually complete autonomy over its local affairs." "Resolution 567 complete equality in constitutional guarantees”. Whatever the theoretical scope of the Insular Cases doctrine, the U.S. “has in fact vested Puerto Ricans by statute or judicially, "virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states.” (p.1160, 1162).
- 4. Puerto Rican SELF-DETERMINATION is for incorporation in four plebiscites over 50 years, at 93-99% for commonwealth(s) and statehood. Puerto Rico’s incorporation into the U.S. federal republic is accepted under international law. Assertions to the about a NON-VOTE is not WP:INSIGNIFICANT, however much it may be wished for by "exclude territory" editors. Initiatives to make PR subject to investigation as a U.S. “colony” have failed to gain traction in over 40 years of fruitless petition. "The consistent trend since 1952 … has been to expand" its citizens' rights and privileges. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- The is just a series of premises that do not support the conclusion. TFD (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- These are direct quotes from TFD reliable source (Lawson and Sloane 2007) which ARE the conclusions concerning the subject "United States of America", topic "extent of the U.S. federal republic".
- "Puerto Rico's decision to forego both statehood and independence in favor of the intermediate status of associated statehood", incorporated into the U.S. with economic advantage not allowed to states. Puerto Rico has not petitioned Congress for statehood.
- U.N. Res. 567 requirement for "self-determination", full citizenship and representation in is met "according to its own constitutional practices". Since 1952, PRs are all "native-born" U.S. citizens, represented on the floor of the Congress just as ALL territories subsequently admitted as states, according to U.S. constitutional practices of territorial incorporation.
- "Puerto Rico manifestly ... enjoys virtually complete autonomy over its own affairs". Not independence, but self-determination in a federal republic. "Independence" is at 4% vote in fifty years of referendums, plebiscites and preference votes, not WP:RELEVANT.
- Theoretical speculation notwithstanding, the U.S. “has in fact vested Puerto Ricans by statute or judicially, "virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states.” (Lawson and Sloane, 2007)
- _ _ Half of U.S. citizens who identify themselves as "Puerto Rican" live in the continental U.S.; they have not chosen to be "independent" of it. Puerto Ricans are elected by majorities in House districts by their fellow citizens to Congress from New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Idaho. There are no such numbers elsewhere, there are no Puerto Rican representatives elected to the national legislature of Cuba or of Guatemala. Spanish speaking or not, Puerto Ricans are Americans. Misplaced Pages should not artificially separate them from the geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic by unsourced editorial selection contrary to official U.S. document Welcome to the United States. a guide for new immigrants, p.77. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- None of that has any relevance except "incorporated into the U.S." which you MADEUP and misrepresents what the source actually says. TFD (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- "None of that has any relevance"?. But that is what the scholars say as directly quoted. Status determination for a place WITHOUT consent of the people in the place is not consistent with U.S. constitutional practice. The U.N. allows for member states to function under their constitutions with human rights, universal citizenship and representation in the national councils. More TFD, no text quoted, no counter sources, just MADEUP asserting MADEUP.
- _ _ Here is a reliable secondary source published by the U.S. Government Printing Office, and directly quoted text which can be verified as NOT WP:CHERRYPICK. It is, Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants. Rev. 09, 2007, p.77, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.”
- _ _ Invitations to return to a time-warp Puerto Rico fantasy version with the injustices before 1935 should NOT be the governing editorial policy for a 2013 country-article that now includes Guam, Samoa, Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico.-- whatever past political injustices were truly suffered by the peoples in those places. The votes of the living count, because the government to serve the people must belong to the living. THAT is what is relevant in a democratic federal republic of today. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Referendum yes = territorial incorporation
- One of the elements of incorporation into the U.S. requires a population to request it of the Congress. That is to say, in the contract theory of government, incorporation into the nation-state of a federal republic REQUIRES a mutual agreement to form political union. “Territory exclusion” editors previously have wondered, “Is not Iraq incorporated into the U.S. since it was administered by the U.S.?” No, the PEOPLE never asked for it. When a freely elected Iraqi government requested withdrawal, U.S.G. complied.
- _ _ ”Territory exclusion” editors point out that the people of the Philippines and Ryukyus chose separation from the U.S., “Must not all territories gain independence or statehood?” No, in U.S. possessions, POPULATIONS organize themselves into republican government, then petitioned Congress for Territorial union. When accepted as U.S. citizens the union is "perpetual" (congress), "irrevocable" (courts). Regardless of initial numbers they are represented in Congress for floor debate on all subjects, etc. There is no STATEHOOD until territorial residents request it and Congress accepts, a MUTUAL agreement.
- _ _ Likewise, when given a vote, Filipinos chose independence, and U.S.G. granted independence. Samoans have not asked to become U.S. citizens. To date, they choose to hold property in tribal-commons. They vote by tribal apportionment and population, not one-man-one-vote. Native Americans on reservations do not petition to incorporate with adjoining states. Their local government represents their self-defined tribal membership by blood. Federal courts agree Cherokee need not recognize descendents of African slaves held at the time of U.S. treaty.
- _ _ In the cases under discussion, the populations of Northern Marianas, Guam, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands have petitioned to become territories with U.S. citizenship, Samoa with national status. Puerto Ricans choose in 1967, 1993, 1998 and 2012 an economically advantageous “commonwealth” union within the U.S. federal republic. Secondary, scholarly source is Gary Lawson and Robert D. Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, 2009, on pages 1164-5, Puerto Rico’s Legal status reconsidered. Here we see the people of Puerto Rico deliberately did chose NOT to become a state … mainly because of the socioeconomic circumstances of the island. “In substantial part, drove Puerto Rico’s decision to forego both statehood and independence in favor of the intermediate status of associated statehood.”
- _ _ WITHOUT scholarly sources, “Exclude territory” editors say international law does not allow Puerto Ricans the “commonwealth” they have chosen. But “self-determination” does not mean “independence” by Misplaced Pages, it means, “the people choose” as understood by reliable sources in verifiable publications. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Puerto Rico's association with the U.S. is not "irrevocable". TFD (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is NO congressional mechanism to strip u.s. citizenship from Puerto Ricans, nor is there any bill in Congress to do so; courts have held it would be unconstitutional were this contingency to come about -- the constitutional provisions of equal protection cannot be turned on and off. The unsourced pipe dream lacks WP:RELEVANCE for 2013 U.S. territories.
- _ _ TFD source Lawson and Sloane, "Puerto Rico’s legal status reconsidered", p. 1160, 1162, shows that "whatever the theoretical scope of the Insular Cases doctrine" -- the U.S. has in fact vested Puerto Ricans by statute or judicially, "virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states.”
- _ _ These rights in Puerto Rico and the states are NOT "revocable" as TFD imagines -- without sources. We have more TFD MADEUP, without any pretension to supply countervailing sources, because again, there are NONE for the "exclude territory" editors, and FTDs own secondary sources support "include territory" editors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congress could of course repeal the citizenship sections of the Jones–Shafroth Act which would have the effect of ending the jus soli right of citizenship to people born after repeal. They cannot of course do that with incorporated territories which are covered under the 14th amendment. I believe the effect of the amendment would be that individuals provided with U.S. citizenship based on birth in Puerto Rico would retain their citizenship. "Revocable" btw refers to the association between the U.S. and Puerto Rico, not citizenship. TFD (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Again, no sources, only TFD MADEUP, or rather a time warp into the injustice done Puerto Rico prior to 1935 or so. But Misplaced Pages is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In this case, TFD refuses to admit or discuss anything after 1935, not from the Supreme Court as a primary source nor from any scholar published in a reliable academic publication. -- As discussed previously in this Talk section,
- _ _ In Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962) the court cited Balzac and made the following statement regarding courts in the “unincorporated” territories as referenced: “The Supreme Court has indicated that once the Constitution has been extended to an area (by Congress or the Courts), its coverage is irrevocable. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say ‘what the law is.’.”
- _ _ Congress may NOT repeal the Jones Act of 1917 since it is already repealed, superseded. The 1917 statute granted a naturalized legislative or statutory citizenship which Congress can revoke. With the 1940 U.S. Nationality Act and the 1952 Nationality Law, the Congress expanded the jus soli rule to Puerto Rico, all persons are "natural-born" U.S. citizens, their U.S. citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
- _ _ Previous acts were superseded by a congressional organic act of incorporation for Puerto Rico in 1952, enlarging protections and privileges. Not only the president may not veto PR legislation, PR may write its own constitution as though it were a state. BECAUSE the 1952 organic act was approved of by a referendum of the Puerto Rican people -- 1. incorporation is now irrevocable as the entire history of incorporated U.S. territories of U.S. citizens show, and 2. the Supreme Court now since 1962 declares, "Once the Constitution has been extended to an area by Congress or the Courts, its coverage is irrevocable."
- _ _ Puerto Ricans may now, mutually with Congress, decide to change their territorial status so as to (a) enlarge their privileges, or (b) they may be admitted to statehood. They may NOT become independent because they are incorporated into the U.S. federal republic in perpetual union, lacking a NO WP:IMPORTANCE constitutional amendment allowing it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as a "congressional organic act of incorporation". Do you really not understanding the difference between an organic act and incorporation? Organic acts organize local government, incorporation incorporates a territory into the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Organic acts do not necessarily incorporate, but some do. They did not for Puerto Rico in 1917. Fast forward to 1952, and Puerto Ricans accept supremacy of the constitution and congress, local three-branch republican government, Article III federal courts and U.S. citizenship of the soil. In the U.S. historically, that's territorial incorporation.
- _ _ Now since 1962, “The Supreme Court has indicated that once the Constitution has been extended to an area (by Congress or the Courts), its coverage is irrevocable." regardless of theoretical powers imagined for the Congress by judicial fiat in 1904. Fast forward to 1962 in Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, the 14th amendment incorporates the place of the people holding U.S. citizenship of the soil, that is how it is done in the constitutional practice of the United States politically and in jurisprudence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
PR self determination ≠ independence
- “Self-determination” does not mean “independence” by Misplaced Pages, it means, “the people choose” as understood by reliable sources in verifiable publications. Puerto Ricans choose in 1952, 1989, and 2012 an economically advantageous “commonwealth” union within the U.S. federal republic.
- _ _ Secondary, scholarly source is Gary Lawson and Robert D. Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, 2009, on pages 1164-5, Puerto Rico’s Legal status reconsidered. “In substantial part, drove Puerto Rico’s decision to forego both statehood and independence in favor of the intermediate status of associated statehood.” Puerto Rican self-determination in three plebiscites over 50 years is incorporation in the U.S. federal union: 1. 99% commonwealth or statehood, 2. 95% commonwealth or statehood, 93% (two-step format, commonwealth, statehood, sovereign commonwealth) – figures rounded. -- |PR 1967 : Commonwealth 60%, statehood 39%, independence 1%. --PR 1993 : Commonwealth 49%, Statehood 46%, independence 4%. -- PR 1998 : None of the above 50%, statehood 47%, independence 2.5%. -- PR 2012 I yes, 46% “commonwealth”, no, 54% other status. -- |PR 2012 II, of the NOT-commonwealth vote of 54% : statehood 61% , sovereign commonwealth 33% , independence 6% .
- _ _ By international law, “states are generally free as to the manner in which, domestically, they … meet their international obligations”, whether “direct reception” by free association, … "legislation, common law, or administrative action as the means. These are matters for each state to determine for itself according to its own constitutional practices.” (Lawson and Sloane, 2007, p.1159). The U.S. has chosen 1. legislation of organic acts, 2. judicial extension of common law, and 3. administrative executive order, in a U.S. citizenship of organized territory which admits to future statehood according to its constitution.
- _ _ “Exclude territories” editors have no counter source, only unreferenced dicta that an undefined international something must confer domestic incorporation in an independent federal republic. Special Committee FAILED to get PR status investigation on U.N. agenda 2012. If the effort to declare PR "colonial" by U.N. action fails for forty years, it fails WP:RELEVANCE as editorial guidance for U.S. territory country-article including the U.S. territories in the extent of its federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Incorporated territories and states of the United States, unlike unincorporated territories, have no right to self-determination. TFD (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- (1) Non-citizen inhabitants in * U.S. possessions DO have a right to self-determination * into (a) independence, the Philippines, (b) separation, the Ryukyus, (c) territorial association as U.S. nationals in Samoa -- OR -- (d) incorporation, perpetual, irrevocable union with the U.S. federal republic. In March 1952 Puerto Rican voters in a referendum exercised their final self-determination to choose -- U.S. territorial status to cement U.S. citizenship by the soil.
- _ _ That no investigation of that status has been undertaken by the U.N. in 40 years, then to say it is urgent to undergo a never-voted-on colonial status investigation is the logical fallacy, begging the question. Subsequent consideration of separation of incorporated Puerto Rico, with full U.S. citizenship of the soil, is not permitted by U.S. constitution -- without a constitutional amendment; none such is on the horizon, it is not WP:RELEVANT.
- _ _ (2) Puerto Ricans have FULL CITIZENSHIP, autonomous self government, and representation in Congress EQUAL to every territory in U.S. history since the 1700s, as required for inclusion in the U.S. by international law (Lawson and Sloane). They as others equally before, adopted republican forms of government, formulated a petition with convention or referendum to become U.S. territories with consent of Congress. This may be with citizenship or national status as THEY and congress mutually determine. U.S. citizenship in all five territories is guaranteed by due process, and there is a representative in Congress as all territories admitted into statehood before.
- _ _ (3) Populations in territories have the right of self-determination to admission as states with consent of Congress, consent theory of federal republic. There is NO SOURCE that incorporated U.S. territories have no right of self-determination to remain as territories or to petition for statehood. Beginning with Vermont, 1791, the history of the United States admitting states demonstrates otherwise. Those of an imperial persuasion disregarding the free suffrage of resident populations for Kansas and Cuba, FAILRD at Kansas Le Compton constitution, Kansas was admitted in spring 1861 by free untainted suffrage and convention, so the one coerced attempt at admitting a state into U.S. history failed.
- _ _ "No right to self-determination ? " -- To what else can you be referring -- the race-based delay of Spanish-speaking Arizona for statehood? There has been no formal petition for statehood from the Puerto Rican legislature, nor a referendum supporting it. BOTH Spanish and English is lawful in Puerto Rican schools and government. Are you trying to argue Puerto Rico has been denied statehood before it has even petitioned? More MADEUP by TFD. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Self-determination is the right of states to "freely determine their political status" (UN Resolution 1514 (XV)). The United States, its inhabited unincorporated territories and all states recognized under public international law have that right. Incorporated states and territories do not have that right. Changing the status of Arizona was not an exercise of self-determination by Arizona, because it was already part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- The U.N. Res 1514 refers to populations WITHOUT citizenship in an occupied possession. Again there are no secondary sources. WITH sources, we have that the international standard for "self-determination" in U.N. G.A. Res. 567 is (a) autonomy over ones own affairs, (b) full citizenship, and (c) representation in the national legislature in accordance with the state's constitutional practice. (Lawson and Sloane 1970, p. 1160) Then we find in our source, (1) “Puerto Rico manifestly … enjoys virtually complete autonomy over its local affairs" (Lawson and Sloan, p.1160). And (2) Puerto Ricans by statute or judicially, enjoy "virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states.” (Lawson and Sloane, p.1160, 1162).
- _ _ Puerto Rico is represented on the floor of the U.S. Congress just as every previous incorporated U.S. territory. Once Puerto Ricans accepted U.S. territory status with U.S. citizenship, the PR-U.S. union is perpetual (congress), irrevocable (courts), due the the 14th Amendment, Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges and Immunities clauses. The U.N. has refused to reconsider investigation of Puerto Rico in any "colonial" status for over forty years. A cottage industry without academic sources may call for its independence based on injustice prior to 1935, but that fails the WP:IMPORTANCE test for Misplaced Pages editors in a country-article for 2013.
- _ _ Puerto Rico HAS chosen to be a U.S. territory, as recently as November 2012 again, PR 2012 I yes, 46% “commonwealth”, no, 54% other status. -- |PR 2012 II, OTHER STATUS 54% : statehood 61% , sovereign commonwealth 33% , independence 6% . Puerto Rico can mutually decide with congress to (a) remain the commonwealth or enhance its privileges (63% of total 2012 vote) (b) seek statehood (30% of total 2012 vote).
- _ _ "Independence" on a PR ballot gets 4% of the vote four times over fifty years in referendums, plebiscites and preferential ballots. We have a WP editor calling for Puerto Rican independence without the people of Puerto Rico. Misplaced Pages is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS of political injustice suffered by the people of Puerto Rico prior to 1935. The territories should be included in the extent of the U.S. federal republic for the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Unilateral declarations of secession
I'm not sure I would say Puerto Rico and the other territories have self-determination. They cannot unilaterally say they are no longer a U.S. territory, not without a fight. It's not like they chose to be a territory, I'm wagering they can't easily choose not to be one. The only true world actors are independent nations. --Golbez (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Puerto Rico HAS chosen to be a U.S. territory, as recently as November 2012 again, PR 2012 I and |PR 2012 II. First PART I, yes, 46% “commonwealth”, no, 54% "other status". Then PART II, OTHER STATUS 54% : sovereign commonwealth 17% of the total vote. So Commonwealth vote plus "enhanced" commonwealth union with the U.S. as acknowledge by the U.N. in Northern Marianas -- totaled 63% to continue as a U.S. territory. Statehood received 30% of the total vote, and "independence" on the ballot per the U.N. Special Committee format, got 3% of the total vote.
- _ _ Puerto Rico can mutually decide with congress to (a) remain the commonwealth or enhance its privileges (63% of total 2012 vote) (b) seek statehood (30% of total 2012 vote). Golbez is correct, the 3% of the total 2012 vote for PR "independence" would have to fight for PR separation from its current perpetual union in the federal republic, because they have not been persuasive in the political arena to gain a majority vote in PR or the U.S. congress. The forceable overthrow of the U.S. Government failed even when 20-30% of the entire nation tried it, nevermind 3% of 1%. We MUST be approaching NO WP:IMPORTANCE, aren't we?
- _ _ Why repeated appeals for the U.N. to force an outcome in the U.S., when there is no apparent support for separation among the people now and for decades since citizenship of the soil in 1952? Why do Puerto Ricans immigrate to U.S., not Cuba or Guatemala? Why always the appeal to bullets instead of ballots. Is there is a subtext here that I am not made aware of? Are the only "true world actors" necessarily and forever anti-democratic? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The U.S. government says that they have the right to self-determination. Here is a statement from the current U.S. president, which is the same as what previous administrations and the U.S. Congress have said. That right is recognized under international law, whether or not the U.S. government chooses to honor it. TheVirginiaHistorian, the issue is not whether Puerto Rico chooses to become independent, but whether they have that right. Since you appear to believe that they do, that should end the discussion. TFD (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- He might say that, but if the government of Puerto Rico declared independence, are you saying that the U.S. government would simply say "fine"? That there would be no necessary actions in the U.S. government to allow or possibly disallow such an action? That at the very least there would be no demand for recompense and repatriation? --Golbez (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Independence could only be achieved by an act of Congress, unless in the meantime Congress passes the Puerto Rico Democracy Act. TFD (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The right of self-determination exists and is protected under Chapter I of the United Nations charter, which the U.S. has signed. In any case, all the secondary sources provided conclude that the unincorporated territories remain unincorporated, regardless of how they are governed. TFD (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Now TFD says, since the Puerto Ricans held the vote without Congress, it does not count because they are Puerto Ricans? Puerto Ricans may not count for TFD until they vote his way. But apart from a "virtual" Puerto Rico prior to 1935 without living persons here,
- _ _ In November 2012, the Puerto Rican government proceeded with a referendum on status, including “Independence” without waiting for any “Puerto Rico Democracy Act” that some pine for. PUERTO RICO -- 160,000 voters alive today -- voted 63% for present commonwealth or an enhanced commonwealth like Northern Marianas, 3% of the total voted for independence.
- _ _ TFD mischaracterizes the discussion at Talk. Here is a link to an academic source in a reliable academic publication, and a direct quote to search, to see there is no WP:CHERRYPICK. Our five secondary sources including, Sparrow in "American Expansion", “"At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, 2005, p.232). -- In the negative, for the “exclude territories” side, there is no secondary source reported contrary to Sparrow to say U.S. territories are -- NOT -- “a part of the United States of America”.
- _ _ In the affirmative, for the “exclude territories” side, there is no secondary source which says the U.S. -- IS -- merely "incorporated" places by Insular Case definition, (1) states, (2) a district, and (3) Palmyra Atoll. And this unfound source of Insular Case advocacy would have to demonstrate exclusion regardless of citizens in the territories who by law and jurisprudence are incorporated "irrevocably" by organic law, natural-born citizens of the soil, the 14th Amendment, Privileges and Immunities, and Due Process clauses as shown here at Talk. "Exclude territories" secondary sources have not been named here before, they are not now. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Including territories in tables
So, Puerto Rico does not at present have the right of self-determination. Anyway, this is all academic; it has nothing to do with the fact that most of the arguments presented (on both sides) are original research, and there are sufficient sources from both sides to back up their statements, which means we stick with the status quo unless even more new blood gets injected here. Furthermore, since the side proposing the change thinks it's sufficient to change one sentence instead of, y'know, the thousands of bits of information in hundreds of articles, or even the dozens of bits of information in this one alone, there's clearly not the will to execute this change, even if it were agreed upon. We should end this now and save ourselves the time wasted on this obviously pointless argument. At what point do we declare this a dead horse and stop beating it? --Golbez (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The official extent of the U.S. federal republic to be found in the introduction is illustrated by the Infobox. Both summarize the country at a sort of 50,000-foot flyover. Narrower scope and greater detail is relegated to text under major headings and subsections.
- _ _ Not deadhorse, MISUNDERSTANDING: All U.S. census tables and those based on them include the territories on the same statistical basis as states. Beginning 1990 census, the five organic act territories are in report data for population, agriculture and economy. They are treated as the "statistical equivalent of a State for consistency in its data presentations and tabulations." See Census reporting category, "Puerto Rico and outlying areas" Census Tabulated Data
- _ _ The responsibility of aligning images to text and text to images cannot be forced on anyone. The responsibility for appropriate alignment rests in the editor placing the chart or illustration. Are there entries in this article from before 1990? Of course they should be looked at again in light of the new data bases published by the U.S. Census department since then. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you seriously think the article (and many others) doesn't need to at least be checked for inconsistency after you change the definition of the country it's working with, then we have nothing more to talk about. This is a dead horse argument. No one's mind is being changed, at least no one involved in this talk page at the moment. I'm doing to look into remedies to stop this pointless argument once and for all if it continues the way it has been. --Golbez (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The change in the introductory text to align the extent of the U.S. federal republic with the official United States of America is illustrated only by the Infobox. I will make them consistent. It is not incumbent on me to correct all careless, unsourced or outdated errors of previous editors for all article sections, nor for those which may be found in “many other” related articles elsewhere.
- _ _ I only address the improvement of the section I edit, consistent with reliable secondary sources readily verified in academic publications, following Misplaced Pages guidelines for an encyclopedia of general international readership. That would have the extent of the U.S. federal republic include the five territories under discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- You obviously don't understand what I want, so I'll stop bringing it up with you. Just be on notice that if you attempt to unilaterally change the definition of the country without performing your (yes, your) due diligence to make sure the article does not become internally inconsistent, I will revert you. If (and that is a large if) consensus is gained to change the definition, then you still must organize on this talk page with editors to make sure that no fact is left unverified. It would be a lot of work that no one can skirt out on, and must be done before any change could actually be made to the article. --Golbez (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Duly noted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Please correct the vandalism in anthem OGG file
There is vandalism in American Anthem file - in 0:21 it shows "AMERICA, FAK YEAH". Could someone please edit that out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zusuris (talk • contribs) 14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
average joe
I disagree with the average joe link in the last sentence under the culture section, I think Americans tend to value being extraordinary rather than being an avergae joe. Pass a Method talk 10:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Progress to "include territories"
This is a dead horse argument. No one's mind is being changed, at least no one involved in this talk page at the moment. I'm doing to look into remedies to stop this pointless argument once and for all if it continues the way it has been. -- Golbez -- 9:18 am, 5 February 2013 seen above.
- Yes there is progress -- in view of the Misplaced Pages goal to build a collegial, collaborative editorship to write an encyclopedia for a general international readership. The “exclude territories" side now admits sources are important, not just wikipedia links and wikipedian consensus. Tertiary sources are now admitted as lesser academic authority than reliable secondary sources. Search engine hits are no longer put forward as a counters to academic scholars. This progress, regardless of the outcome.
- “Exlude territories” side have abandoned, “It is the opinion of an expert arguing against consensus and therefore cannot be presented as a fact.” Congressional statute is now admitted to be the law of the land. It is admitted Congress is bound by the Constitution and cannot suspend territorial legislatures or U.S. citizenship. British territory without representation in Parliament is not made equivalent to U.S. territory with representation in Congress. This is progress, regardless of the outcome.
- The “Exclude territories” side no longer contest about the official “include territories” found in U.S. Code for all federal courts, existence of territorial Members of Congress websites, inclusion of territories in Census of population, economy and agriculture, Post Office, Immigration and Naturalization statute and State Department Manual. The District, with an inferior constitutional status to the territories, is not to be dropped. This is progress for "include territories" side.
- The “exclude territories” argument to delay including territories, awaiting ocean treaty survey resolution is dropped, statistical comparison between “Republic of France” and Metropolitan France (OECD), versus United States of America and 50 states (U.S.Census), is dropped, objections to statistical variations in reporting which do not effect comparisons along international metrics is dropped. This is progress for "include territories" side.
- The “exclude territories” argument based on the Insular Case extent of the official U.S. federal republic as “incorporated” 50 states, DC, and Palmyra – only -- is dropped, with nothing to replace it. Court cases supporting “exclude territories” are limited to those prior to 1935, all subsequently overturned or superseded by statute. Uninhabited places known for guano mines and seagulls is dropped as equivalent to productive economies of self-governing U.S. citizens, with nothing to replace the lost argument. This is progress for "include territories" side.
- _ _ This discussion is, overarchingly, by and large, progress for the "include territories" side. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- And by "exclude territories" side, you mean the three or four people arguing for it, and by "include territories" side, you mean you and Buzity? Because the problem is that you can't say you won unless you gain consensus from others that you won. And it still looks like the numbers aren't in your favor. --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Still no secondary sources from a reliable academic source since 1962 -- over the last half-century -- to say either in the Negative (a) "U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S. federal republic." or in the Affirmative (b) "The official United States of America is fifty states, the federal district and Palmyra Atoll.", the court-made 1901-1904 “incorporation” of territories without Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Official U.S.A. and -4- international considerations
- Here is a three-part proposal concerning the U.S. territories in the first sentence, to take into consideration both (a) the official United States of America as reported by the U.S.G., with exceptions noted, and (b) four international perspectives of the U.S. territories.
- _ ( I ) The intro sentence to read in part, the U.S. federal constitutional republic includes fifty states, a federal district, and five territories. , with links –
- _ ( II ) The intro cites U.S.G. and academic source, then says in part, that territorial status claimed by the U.S. as within its jurisdiction and incorporated by its constitutional practice has been and still is contested in international forums, both in the Caribbean and in the Western Pacific. –
- _ ( III ) Narrative under ‘Political divisions’, include four points, balanced two-and-two -- FIRST two categories adverse to U.S. interests, SECOND -- two categories consistent with U.S. interests
- - - - (a) International forum disputes -- by Haiti, Cuba, New Zealand and others,
- - - - (b) Ongoing U.N. investigation -- including Guam and others,
- - - - (c) U.N. cases in U.S. favor -- Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas by U.N. oversight declarations, Compact, Executive Order, etc.,
- - - - (d) Bi-lateral territorial negotiations -- undertaken by the U.S. State Department, perhaps two currently at Haiti and New Zealand?
- _ Amended from 23 December 2012 proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea what is going on in section III there. --Golbez (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the courtesy of asking. See, this is why we agree more than half the time over the last year.
- _ _ I have a sense, particularly from TFD, that some editors would have it, regardless of the U.S.G. -- here at WP article, in their view,"Do not include territories in the U.S., the U.S. possessions which are not made states should be independent." TFD has said as much for Puerto Rico. On the other hand, I believe the U.S.G. view of itself should be accepted as the subject country's government -- with other sourced views in footnotes or in subsection narrative apart from the introduction. I have explicitly said on this page and other Talk pages -- that I believe Puerto Rico should be made a state, with five representatives, expand the House to 441 and add one to the Utah delegation (the state statistically closest to getting one more by the last apportionment).
- _ _ The justice-or-independence sentiment was echoed in twenty-some petitioners in 2012 before the U.N. Special Committee of 28 reviewing subject peoples around the globe. Several notables suggested the U.N. make investigation at the committee hearing, particularly over the reclamation of an island used for a U.S.G. firing range for fifty years with unexploded ordnance, but "Puerto Rico" never made it to the U.N. agenda. The petition was tabled and participants were enjoined to use international procedures and mutual discourse -- subtext, use courts and ballots, not bullets to express objection to the U.S.G. regime.
- _ _ Nevertheless, looking at the U.S.G. apart from its own constitutional practice (which includes the U.S. territories), to the international reader, it is of some note that in international forums, the administration status in U.S. possessions, habited and uninhabited, have been or are now being challenged. Not that the U.S.G. is not a legitimate independent nation in the family of nations, only that it is of some interest and note where these things occur, rising to a level of SIGNIFICANCE, not by 20 individual petitioners and a press release, but by formal diplomatic protest and international concerted action.
- _ _ Section III is meant to bring balance for the international reader outside the U.S.G. view of itself to reflect in a balanced way, (a) bilateral disputes over U.S. territory by formal diplomatic notice to the U.S.G. by a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N. -- Isn't there one by indigenous peoples in New Zealand against a part of Samoa? (b) ongoing challenges to the U.S. administration of a place undertaken for review by international investigation or tribunal such as Guam as of 2012. Is it continued into 2013?
- _ _ (c) previous challenges with outcomes finding FOR U.S. constitutional practice for peoples in places, such as Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico (d) ongoing bilateral negotiations engaged in by the U.S.G., a subset of (a). My last reading into a State Department web page just made mention of two without being specific as to which -- the uninhabited Caribbean island off Puerto Rico that Haiti contested in the past?. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have never said that U.S. territories should become independent. And section III does not address any "bilateral disputes over U.S. territory". TFD (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- More lack-of-forthrightness. TFD said 8:15 pm, 10 January 2013, "I hope the people of Puerto Rico choose either statehood or independence, so we can stop this silly discussion.", in archive 43 above, that's "as much" as saying you are for one or the other. I hope we get an administrator along side soon to facilitate sourced collaboration. Can you assist initiating it?
- _ _ My three-part outline proposal is an attempt to try to make peace with "exclude territories" editors, so the U.S.G. position can be reported on the U.S.A. page over the unsourced objections of some, but their external academic interests can be accounted in sourced narrative along the lines I have suggested, were they to pursue it. Editors objecting to "include territories" include Golbez, an editor I respect, who also has technical reservations. He and I have collaborated in multi-editor multi-step compromises on this page and others over the past year.
- _ _ Of course if no one at WP is aware of any sources to substantiate the existence of any claims against U.S. constitutional practice as published in U.S. Printing Office, Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants, page 77. I guess we are left with straight statement in the article introduction sentence, without supplemental narrative or notes, to "include territories". -- The extent of the U.S. federal constitutional republic is fifty states, a federal district and five U.S. territories, Northern Marianas, Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The onus is on the editor wishing to add information. So far you have provided a primary source of a federal judge speaking obiter dictum, a secondary source where a writer expresses an opinion and a tertiary source from the U.S. government. Oddly you added that with a CIA source saying the territories remain unincorporated. Various sources provided to you, and in fact all the secondary sources provided by you are in agreement with the status of the territories. All you have provided are arguments, citizenship has been extended to the territories, the federal government treats them as states, they are self-governing, organized means incorporated etc. Only one other editor has accepted your viewpoint. Administrators btw have no authority to settle conflict disputes. TFD (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- More TFD misrepresentation (no terciary reliance on my part, only my refuting his), misdirection (all secondary sources agree with "including" not "excluding"), and attack ("all you have provided is arguments") without contribution of sources of his own. The encyclopedia article is not a list of factoids WP:SCHOLARSHIP. “Opinion” of a scholar in an academic publication provides context and authority beyond mirroring lists from other websites or publishing editors unfounded assertion. If there are two countervailing scholarly opinions from editor contributions, they are to be represented in a balanced way WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. I have proposed the framework for a balance in December and now again in February, were there to be any other countervailing source presented; there is not.
- _ _ Still no secondary sources for “exclude territories”, so no call for other notice in the article besides "include territories. The onus for amending the article is satisfied. There are reliable sources and quotes for “include territories”, none for “exclude territories”. The article extent of U.S. federal republic as it now reads is cited to a tertiary source requiring a challenged interpretation. “Include territories” should reasonably prevail.
- _ _ For “include territories” we have to quoted from a U.S. Government Printing Office publication, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” (A guide for new immigrants, 2007. p.77.) and "include territories" is supported by the reliable secondary source in the quote, "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, 2005, p.232).
- _ _ There is nothing offered to oppose "include territories" but unsourced argumentation and a challenged tertiary source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Territories: Dead Horse
Just curious, at what point have we fallen afoul of WP:DEADHORSE? As Golbez has pointed out, only two editors seem to want to include territories, four are against. Actually, make that five, with me as well. We can go on more and more with enormous posts by those two editors that are not convincing anyone, or realize that we past DEADHORSE ages ago. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome, I respect your right to your own private point of view to dismiss about five million people in populations of self-governing citizens represented in Congress from the extent of U.S. federal republic as held in law, jurisprudence and practice.
- _ _ Have you any secondary sources from scholars in a reliable academic publication in the last half-century, SINCE 1962 to say in this debate, either in the Negative of your position, (1) "U.S. territories are NOT a part of the U.S. federal republic.", or in the Affirmative of your position, (2) "The official United States of America is fifty states, the District of Columbia AND Palmyra Atoll." the court-made 1901-1904 “incorporation” of territories without Congress? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, now I'm thinking I need to bring in an administrator to remind you about Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Very well. I'd like to make the request together with you. I am unfamiliar with how it is properly done. I know some procedures require two editors for administrator intervention. What is it called in Misplaced Pages when one editor asks for sources and another calls it a personal attack, again as before, without reliable scholarly sources from within the last half-century -- to support "exclude the territories" in the extent of the U.S. federal republic?
- _ _ We do indeed need an administrator to review the discussion, one with some expertise in the field of citizenship, U.S. Constitution and international law, as Buzity suggested about a week ago. Thank you in advance for your help in this matter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Administrators aren't here to decide which side is right (hell, I'm one), they're here to make sure things stay on the up and up while the discussion happens. Telling someone after one comment that they want to "dismiss about five million people" is not conducive to a quality discussion. --Golbez (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I yield to administrator Golbez. I should not speak to consequences I believe inherent in a statement, I should stick with the statement. I stand corrected, apologies. Come to think of it, my Canadian cousin doesn't let me get away with leaps like that either. It's been a while, I'm afraid.
- _ _ Still, I would ask for sources from the "exclude territories" side, a secondary citation by an academic since 1962, who contradicts "including territories", either by reporting (1) "U.S. territories are not a part of the United States.", or alternatively, (2) "The official United States is fifty states, a federal district and Palmyra Atoll", the court-made 1901-1904 “incorporation” of territories without Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The cancer of the US
The cancer of the US is coming from the south. Proof of this will be the new immigration law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.50.168 (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure where this is coming from. Much of Spanish colonial law and Napoleonic law used in countries to the south of the U.S. is rooted in the laws of the ancient Roman republic. No scholar has to my knowledge says that the traditions of that republic are a "cancer".
- _ _ To what specifics could you possibly be referring? We see the difference in rights to water, which can be seen as held in common by the community or as a mineral right to the surface owner. For instance Texas historian T.R. Fehrenbach in |Lone Star: A History Of Texas And The Texans notes that under Spanish legal traditions, every property owner must allow access to water for all on his property. Under the Texas Anglo, water could be fenced off. You may recall cowboy-western movies showing the conflict between cattlemen and sheepherders, or corporate cattlemen and homestead farmers. But even in the Anglo tradition, before the Common Law of the Norman conquerors, the English had the community tradition of the commons, where a landless peasant could graze and water his animals while out in the laird’s fields during the day. That tradition ended with the infamous Inclosure Acts. Think Jack and the Beanstalk.
- _ _ You may have seen the movie Shrek, where all the bad actors have narrow pasty white faces and slitted narrow noses with clipped accents, and all the good characters have broad accents and brogues of the non-English and Celts, and the still undrained swamps are threatened to be converted to enclosed feudal farmland to make the wealthy prince wealthier, inhabited by Celtic fairy tale characters that the English would exterminate. But ancient Roman and Anglo-Saxon, Spanish and Napoleonic traditions are not “cancers” in a federal republic. When their communities become sufficient to command electoral majorities in a county or a state, their traditions will inform how the population lives out their lives, albeit under the U.S. with individual rights, constitutional citizenship, local governance, and representation in Congress.
- _ _ Most substantial differences in traditions are adjusted in regional sub-national areas of the eleven federal appellate courts, distinct regimes have grown up in Virginia (4th), Louisiana (5th), Utah (10th) and California (9th). In Virginia there are over100 counties where Baptists predominate and no liquor can be publicly sold but in one state-run liquor store. Counties predominated by Muslims will probably have similar “local option” choices. There is nothing to fear from immigration in a federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well I suppose that's one way to respond to a troll, usually we ignore them. But you spent so much time on this, I figured it should stay. --Golbez (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Though nothing is straightforward. A cross current to the diversity is the English language which enables occupational and geographic mobility. If you want to coach high school soccer in San Antonio or Miami, but you don't get a job out of college there, maybe you could find a teaching-coaching job in Minnesota, with English. etc. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well I suppose that's one way to respond to a troll, usually we ignore them. But you spent so much time on this, I figured it should stay. --Golbez (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
“Include territories” summary for mediation
- For “include territories” there is a quote from a U.S. GPO publication, (1) “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” (A guide for new immigrants, 2007. p.77.) and "include territories" is supported by the reliable secondary source in the quote, (2) "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, 2005, p.232).
- _ _ “Include territories” sources include links to inspect previously directly quoted text made here at Talk and archived pages: Sparrow in Levinson, 2005. p.232; Julian Go in Levinson, 2005. p.215, 225; Charles Chapel in Murphy, 2005, p. 34; Gustavo Gelpi’s two studies on The Insular Cases, Juan Torruella’s 2007 The Insular Cases in the Univ. or Penn. Journal of International Law. - - - Since the 1901-1904 judicial fiat “incorporating” states, district and Palymra Atoll only, there are “include territory” Congressional statutes and reports since 1952. Homeland Security Act, PR concurrent resolution, Oversight committee statement. Consistent with that is the Presidential Executive Order with the force of law. The congressional organic acts incorporating each U.S. territory since 1952 all have been accepted by local referendum in the same manner irrevocably binding in U.S. constitutional practice since 1805, including full U.S. citizenship, protections of the 14th Amendment, and representation on the floor by a Member of Congress. N. Marianas, MoC Sablan; Guam, MoC Bordallo; Samoa, MoC Faleomavaega; Puerto Rico, MoC Pierluisi; Virgin Islands, MoC Christensen.
- _ _ “Including territories” is the convention of reporting the extent of the U.S. federal republic in all current U.S. government publications. A guide for new immigrants 2007. p.77, U.S. Code, Foreign Affairs Manual, Census community survey, Boundaries in the Caribbean, GIS data & maps, Federal tax law, Consular Affairs, Statistical Abstract, Right to Travel, Maritime boundaries, at the word “state”, throughout the U.S. Code and Council of Governors, and the U.S. Postal Service. - - - Editors for "exclude territories" claim there is only one court case. Besides the unchallenged five-year standing Consejo v. Rullan Case, searchable quotations establishing citizenship is extended to the territories, the federal government treats them as states, they are self governing, congressional organic acts with citizenship means incorporated. These are supported by the reliable scholarly source Gary Lawson and Robert D. Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, 2009, on pages 1164-5, Puerto Rico’s Legal status reconsidered. Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, Colon v. U.S., Rassmussen, Martin v. Hunter, Posadas v. Tourism, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson, , and others found in Talk Archive 43 and 44.
- _ _ “Exclude territories” depend on (a) restating 1901-1904 judge-made declarations of “incorporating” states, federal district and Palmyra Atoll. They refuse to admit any scholarship, statute or court case since 1935 incorporating U.S. citizens, insisting citizenship in 1904 possessions may be subsequently withdrawn by congressional vote. (b) Repeated references to primary documents from U.N. resolutions without scholarly interpretation, while cited scholars show interpretations of U.N. resolutions to “include territories”. (c) The article is left with a challenged tertiary source listing all places of U.S. government indiscriminately, confusing places with governors and places with mayors. The resistance to "include territories" is not sufficiently sourced to prohibit the article amendment stating, "The extent of the U.S. federal republic includes fifty states, a federal district and five territories."
- _ _ “Exclude territories” as a formal argument is to say in the Negative (a) "U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S. federal republic." or in the Affirmative (b) "The official United States of America is fifty states, the federal district and Palmyra Atoll.", the court-made 1901-1904 “incorporation” of territories without Congress. Neither case has been made. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
USPS states/territories v. military
- Could you edit down your sources? The Postal Service "State" tab for example lists Puerto Rico under "State/Possession". That is not a source that Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. and even if it were, since Palau is included, you would have to make the argument for them as well. The "State" tab also has a list for "Military "State"" which provides the codes for U.S. military forces in countries around the world. All it means is that the US Postal Services delivers to these territories, not that they are incorporated. TFD (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- More disingenuousness from TFD. The link is provided as one of fourteen examples of U.S.G. usage "including territories". As a part of the U.S., Official USPS Abbreviations, “Puerto Rico” is located alphabetically between “Pennsylvania” and “Rhode Island”, there is NO SEPARATION of states and territories by categories of mail to U.S. citizens. Military addresses are separated from states/territories by a bright blue header which an impartial reader may discern on visiting the page.
- _ _ There is no distinction at the USPS 2013 website based on 1901-1904 judge-made "unincorporated" apartheid without citizenship in the territories, because there is no longer any legal or practical distinction between states and territories in 2013. Otherwise there is only editor "virtual" madeup-world without any additional U.S. law, jurisprudence or practice since the days of the Filipino Insurrection one hundred years ago.
- _ _ In any case, how mail bags are sorted and routed in the southwest Pacific to Palau is not germane to the discussion. There is no secondary source over the last half-century (since 1963) to say “U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S.” because the FIVE territories under discussion are incorporated into the U.S. federal republic of U.S. citizens. The article first sentence should reflect that established reality. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- That the list includes both Puerto Rico and Palau indicates that the list is totally meaningless for the purpose for which you are attempting to use it. This largely characterizes the majority of evidence you claim as supporting your position. older ≠ wiser 14:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- The meaning of the list is, "include territories" is the usage of the U.S.G. publications today. There is no "exclude territories" currently published to be found; that which is century-old is now superseded. There is very little that is "totally meaningless" in its context; but then, nothing has meaning without reason. "I think therefore I am." - Descartes.
- _ _ Statement, "This largely characterizes the majority", in this context is WP:WEASEL. The USPS "states/territories" unified category is an "include territories" example of U.S.G. usage. All cited scholarly, government and primary publications align with "include territories". There is no citation supporting "exclude territories" other than the challenged tertiary source confusing places with governors and places with mayors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- By that reasoning, Palau and Puerto Rico are equivalent. That indicates the list is meaningless for the purpose you are using it. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Palau is not germane, it is a "straw man", an argument of informal fallacy misrepresenting an opponent's position. "Attacking a straw man" purports to refute a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, WITHOUT ever having actually refuted the original position, see Straw man.
- _ _ In this case, Palau is an island with U.S. mail delivery, but not an island incorporated in the U.S. federal republic by U.S. citizenship, constitutional governance and representation in Congress, as are Northern Marianas, Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.
- _ _ The straw man is a fallacious argument, without sources, and to the point, regardless of Palau status, there is no scholarly source cited here that the five territories under discussion are NOT now incorporated in the 2013 U.S. federal republic, only that they are, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, ... the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” (A guide for new immigrants, 2007. p.77.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are making a claim that this supposed evidence supports your claim that Puerto Rico has a particular status. This list is in fact meaningless for that purpose. If you do nopt see that, there is really nothing to discuss, despite your verbosity. older ≠ wiser 21:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Include territories" is based on scholarly sources, supported by primary sources. Tertiary source USPS list of abbreviations is one of 14 of U.S.G. usages "including territories". The ONLY current "exclude territory" source is tertiary, but WP articles "should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a LESSER extent, on tertiary sources", see WP:SECONDARY.
- _ _ Again with the straw man. A tertiary source demonstrates U.S.G. usage, so since the list of abbreviations cannot show U.S. citizenship, no citizenship can be inferred by older≠wiser for states, territories, Pelau or U.S. military overseas. But that is not how I use this tertiary evidence; its an example of U.S.G. usage "including territories" to support scholarly sources, official U.S.G. publications, primary references to statutes, executive orders, and court cases extending from 1952 until 2009.
- _ _ There is no secondary or scholarly source over the last fifty years to support "exclude territories", nor any primary source for "exclude territories" applicable to the extent of the U.S. federal republic in 2013. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- This entire thread has a very Alice in Wonderland quality to it. I remain stupefied by the creative leaps in logic presented in the guise of rational arguments. older ≠ wiser 22:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- The "include territories" logic is supported by scholarly sources, reliable publications and sourced examples.
- _ _ Still no sources to "exclude territories" in the negative, "not a part of the U.S.", citizens in places, under the constitution, represented in Congress, by organic acts incorporated as all territories admitted as states since 1805.
- _ _ Still no sources to support "exclude territories" as did the Insular Cases without congressional statute, to say, "The U.S. is states, federal district, and Palmyra Atoll." There is no such 2013 "incorporated" U.S.G. usage excluding territories.
- _ _ The wonder is no sources can be found for "excluding territories" but a challenged tertiary list, superseded court cases. There is only argumentative refusal to admit the most recent half-century of U.S. law, jurisprudence and political practice. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Lists and proofs
TVH, you need to understand that if you say "Its inclusion on the list is evidence PR is part of the country", you cannot then say "but that doesn't apply to Palau". You do not get to do that. It's absolutely disingenuous. The only one here building a strawman is you. --Golbez (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I said, "The link is provided as one of fourteen examples of U.S.G. usage "including territories". The "exclude territory" says, "alphabetical list of states/territories does not prove 'part of the country'". But it is not meant to, it is only to show 1 of 14 U.S.G. "include territory" usages, and there is no "exclude territory" usage to be found. For "exclude territories" there is only misstating the other's argument to declare, "The does not prove the ". But the "include territories" argument had it, "The is proven by , followed by supporting ."
- _ _ The tertiary source example in "USPS Abbreviations" cannot be used to prove "include territory", so I in WP:GOODFAITH do not use it except as a supporting example of the scholarly source proof. Likewise, the tertiary source "CIA Factbook" cannot be used to prove "exclude territory"; editors of good faith cannot use it. "Include territories" is proved on scholarly sources, supported by primary sources.
- _ _ Secondary sources for “Include territories” include scholars, journals, books and publishers: “The Federal Lawyer”, “Journal of International Law”, “Boston College Law Review”, “Lousiana Purchase and American Expansion”, professors at Boston College and University of Texas, three federal judges publishing as scholars, U.S. Government Printing Office, Rowman & Littlefield, and Cambridge U. Press. There are none for "exclude territories".The first sentence should report the U.S. federal republic including its five territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
WP policies for “include territories”
- “Article Policies” at the Talk:United States infobox states above, “This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. WP:No original research. The term "original research" (OR) refers to material for which no reliable, published sources exist. In this case, “exclude territories” is original research, there are no reliable, published sources for "exclude territories" to apply to the 2013 United States.
- _ _ The word "source" is the type of the work, for “including territories”, an article in (1) “The Federal Lawyer”, (2) “Journal of International Law”, (3) “Boston College Law Review”, or a book, for “including territories” in “Lousiana Purchase and American Expansion”, (4) a contributor from Boston College and (5) the co-editor from Texas U., and the publisher of the work, “include territories sources” by (6) U.S. Government Printing Office, Rowman & Littlefield, and Cambridge U. Press, see WP:SOURCES.
- _ _ Neutral point of view. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Giving due weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of a description as more widely held views. Tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views, in this case, Insular Cases which “exclude territories” in the U.S. extent 1901-1904, see WP:Due.
- _ _ Verifiability. In Misplaced Pages, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources, see WP:SECONDARY.
- _ _ A tertiary source is an index and/or textual condensation of primary and secondary sources, such as the challenged “CIA Factbook” which confuses places with governors and mayors in its lists of U.S. places uniformly reported under "U.S. government". It does not say “U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S.” -- editors must infer that unsourced conclusion from a text which does not say it to be quoted, so there is no quote from a source of any kind for "exclude territories". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
DR talk
So... the problem is whether the article lead section should say, in essence, "The United States includes the 50 states and DC" or "the 50 states, DC, territories, etc."? Respectfully, and to both sides, it's time to spin down all the source-based argument... it's only serving to make this discussion completely inaccessible to any outsiders, and frankly does not make the slightest bit of difference in the result.
Here's my take: the statement "The United States includes the 50 states and DC" does not exclude the possibility that the United States includes more territories, etc. Words of illustration vs. words of limitation; at least this vs. this and only this. There is evidently a great deal of evidence for both sides, at least to illustrate that there's a dispute. Where there is a dispute, we shouldn't try to resolve it... we should comment on it. The lead section should say "The precise definition of what the term "United States" includes is a matter of some disagreement, but by all accounts it includes at least the 50 states and the District of Columbia." Then there should be a section discussing what is included in "United States", supported by a reasonable selection of the best secondary sources from both sides. Sound reasonable? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is. Most clearly at United States#Political divisions, although it is also addressed in various notes throughout about what is included when comparing statistics with other countries. I think TVH and Buzity fundamentally disagree with most everyone else as to whether or not Puerto Rico (and to some extent other territories) are an integral part of the U.S. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, then the lead section should reflect that there is a disagreement of sorts as to what the phrase "United States" refers. Bing bang boom, you're done. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Problem is, as it reads, the sentence joins states and DC as equivalent in their residents' U.S. citizenship, but deny that same status to territories which enjoy the "privileges and immunities of citizenship equivalent to that enjoyed by states" as specified in congressional organic acts and subsequent supreme court rulings for both DC and U.S. territories.
- _ _ Problem is, (a) there is no secondary source to exclude the territories, (b) DC has Article I federal courts inferior to U.S. Territory Article III federal courts, and (c) Lawson and Sloane say lack of presidential elector does not disqualify territories from U.N. resolution criteria "equal citizenship" and "participate in national councils". So DC and Territories need to be treated the same "equivalent" to states in the introductory sentence. Finer distinctions of U.S. constitutional practice belong in article sections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Two people complaining loudly constitutes a disagreement about the makeup of one of the biggest countries in the world? This is why I've wanted more people involved, because as it is there is no consensus for any change, including that one. The makeup of the U.S. should be easy to find out; for some reason it is not, but consensus still seems to lean towards one way. I find it interesting that TVH has not once asked the opinion of the Puerto Rico talk page, or any other territories'. You'd think that if he cared so much about it, he would have checked in there for anyone who could assist. Not to mention Talk:Political status of Puerto Rico. --Golbez (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- VH: Nobody's excluding anything in my proposed wording. You're equating words of illustration with words of limitation, which is, respectfully, erroneous. Nobody's denigrating the citizenry of those territories and possessions. I understand and appreciate your wish to avoid such implications, but with all due respect, the wording and strategy I'm proposing in no way makes such implications, and in fact goes a long way towards preventing the drawing of such implications by passing the buck to the people who use the definition you oppose.
- Golbez: I'm not saying that the mere forcefulness of VH and Buzity constitutes evidence that there is a disagreement, though I would respectfully suggest that it should counsel exploration of the possibility that a dispute exists. Mere conflict in how various sources define things could itself be a good indicator that a disagreement exists or should be mentioned... and in fact it could be discussed in that vein ("Sources are in disagreement as to what the term "Untied States" includes, but most agree that it is at least the 50 states and the District of Columbia.").
- To all: The 9th edition of Black's Law Dictionary seems to support the statement that "United States of America" (and by extension "United States") refers to the 50 states and D.C. There seems to be disagreement in the legal more contexts. See e.g., United States v. Morton, 314 F. Supp. 2d 509, 512–13 (D. Md. 2004) (see also West's headnote contrasting the geographic boundaries of the United States with its "special territorial jurisdiction"). More simply, I would argue that a dispute exists because the lede (necessarily so) skips over a lot of nuances in the definition of what the United States is. What defines a nation is neither simple nor straightforward, but for the purposes of the lede, we must be simple and straightforward. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Then isn't the lede sufficient as is? That the U.S. consists of at least the fifty states and federal district is not in dispute, and it states this. It then also says the U.S. "also possesses" territories. The specifics of that are left until later in the article, where they could perhaps be more ably handled with sources and commentary than they are now, but the lede seems already sufficient for what is being proposed. --Golbez (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I'd be interested in VH's response to that. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I believe we are agreed. Let me see if I can restate our agreement. For this next draft, I replaced the participle "including" with "which includes" to convey an open-ended category as intended, "nobody's excluding anything". Lead article sentence to read, "The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly called the United States (US or U.S.) and America, is a federal constitutional republic which includes fifty states and a federal district." The country is situated mostly in central North America, ...
- "Some sources style the official U.S. as the judicially “incorporated” territory of 50 states, the District and Palmyra Atoll.” -- Golbez et al, will replace the tertiary and primary sources of challenged editor interpretation with a direct quote from a secondary source with its date of publication.
- "Some sources style the official U.S. as the congressionally "incorporated" 50 states, the District and five territories. (1) See “Welcome to the United States:a guide for new immigrants”, 2007 p.77. ISBN 978-0-16078-733-1, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” (2) See also, Bartholomew H. Sparrow, coeditor in Sanford Levinson’s anthology, “ Louisiana Purchas and American Expansion, 2005, p.2323, ISBN 978-0-74254-984-5. 'At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.' "
- _ _ I accept Mendaliv's guidance, "for the purposes of the lede, we must be simple and straightforward." and statements should be "supported by a reasonable selection of the best secondary sources from both sides." That is the basis of my agreement.
- _ _ In the notes, I made the key distinction of judicial incorporation of place found in the 1901-1904 Insular Cases versus congressional incorporation of citizens as enacted in territory organic acts adjudicated in Supreme Court decisions for the fifty years since 1962. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
ARDA2000was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "US Religious Landscape Survey". 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-10.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
ARIS2008was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
Pewwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
ciafactwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
ReligFreedom-UnivVirginiawas invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- C-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- Past U.S. collaborations of the Month
- WikiProject United States articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- C-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- C-Class North America articles
- Top-importance North America articles
- WikiProject North America articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed United States Government articles
- Unknown-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- United States Government articles with to-do lists
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English