Talk:United States/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

"Include territories" executive orders

U.S. Presidents issue "executive orders", once called "presidential memoranda", to direct officers and agencies of the executive branch with the full force of law. They may take authority directly from the Constitution, but typically they are made pursuant to Acts of Congress, including those which specifically delegate discretionary power to the President.

_ _ '[U.S.]' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.”, |Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l) (l)

_ _ Gerald Ford, | Northern Marianas Message the people of the Marianas District to enter into close union with the United States. Jimmy Carter, | Guam Message transmitting proposed Constitution, “the people of Guam can assume greater responsibilities of local self-government in political union with the United States.” George Bush, Memorandum on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Barack Obama, | Establishment of the Council of Governors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything in your latest postings that you have not provided before? If the Mariana Islands are part of the U.S., why is it that the covenant states that "neither trial by jury nor indictment by grand jury shall be required in any civil action or criminal prosecution based on local law" and, "Other provisions of or amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which do not apply of their own force within the Northern Mariana Islands, will be applicable within the Northern Mariana Islands only with the approval of the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands and of the Government of the United States"?[1] It is because as a state outside but "in political union with" the U.S., the Islands are only obligated to follow American laws to which they have agreed. TFD (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD your statement is inaccurate. All the federal laws applies to Puerto Rico unless not locally inapplicable. All federal laws shall have the same force and effect in Puerto Rico as part of the United States.

Example - A federal law related to something related to snow. Well, will be locally inapplicable to a place that does not snow!

All federal laws, criminal and civil in nature, apply to Puerto Rico as they apply to the States,

unless otherwise provided. 48 U.S.C. § 734; Trailer Marine Transport Corp., 977 F. 3d at 7.23

Following the 1950 and 1952 legislation, only two district court decisions have held that

a particular federal law, which does not specifically exclude or treat Puerto Rico differently, is

inapplicable to Puerto Rico. The more recent decision was vacated on appeal. See United States

v. Rios, 140 F. Supp. 376 (D.P.R. 1956) (refusing to apply the Federal Firearms Act to transactions

solely within Puerto Rico); United States. v. Acosta Martínez, 106 F. Supp 2d 311 (D.P.R. 2000)

(refusing to apply federal death penalty to Puerto Rico), rev’d 252 F. 3d 13 (1st Cir. 2001); cert.

denied 535 U.S. 906 (2002). --Buzity (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am quoting the "Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America", which was an agreement reached between the governments of the United States and the Northern Mariana Islands and presented to the United Nations. Federal laws extend to Puerto Rico under the Jones–Shafroth Act 1917 (codified in 48 USC 734), "except as...otherwise provided."[2] No such act is required for areas within the United States. But it is a bizarre argument that the act incorporated PR, because the U.S. listed PR as a [[non-self-governing territory in 1946. TFD (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The Covenant can be unilaterally ammended by the U.S. Government. The Covenant was unilaterally amended by the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 CNRA approved by the U.S. Congress on May 8, 2008, thus altering the CNMI’s immigration system. Specifically, CNRA § 702(a) amended the Covenant to state that “the provisions of the ‘immigration laws’ (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))) shall apply to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.”2 Further, under CNRA § 702(a), the “immigration laws,” as well as the amendments to the Covenant, “shall . . . supersede and replace all laws, provisions, or programs of the Commonwealth relating to the admission of aliens and the removal of aliens from the Commonwealth.”

The Covenant between the U.S. Government and a self-governing territory that is part of their nation is not the same that a free association international treaty between Republics. Like the international free association treaties between the republics of Palau, The Marshall Islands, and The Federated States of Micronesia and the United States. --Buzity (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That the U.S. is able to exercise unilateral power over PR is evidence that it is not in "free association" with the U.S., as the U.S. told the UN, but remains a "non-self-governing territory" or colony of an "American empire". Which is why the U.S. relationship with its overseas territories remains an issue both for the U.S. government and the UN. TFD (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union.Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976). The aforementioned list is of "non-self-governing territories", Puerto Rico is a "self-governing territory" of the United States with the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union of the United States. The list is of "non-self-governing territories"; territories that comply with the definition of the U.N. of self-governing territories are not on the list. --Buzity (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No the purpose was to recognize the self-determination of Puerto Rico, as promised to the UN, by entering into a free association with it and allowing its citizens all the rights and privileges as citizens of U.S. states. Which is exactly what the U.K. has provided to its organized overseas territories. If you think the 1976 case determined that PR was part of the U.S., then you need a source that draws that conclusion. TFD (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Where are your sources to prove all that you said on the previous paragraph? It is MADEUP.

TFD are saying to us, the Wikipedians, the U.S. Supreme Court is wrong that was not the purpose, I know the real purpose and I am right! --Buzity (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

@ TFD said, “If you think the 1976 case determined that PR was part of the U.S., then you need a source that draws that conclusion.” – The discussion now approaches a question of WP:GOODFAITH. The official U.S.G. publication defines the official United States of America in Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants, page 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.”

_ _ The official U.S.G. description of the official U.S.A. is to be used in the introduction of an country-article accessed by general readers in an international community. How is it that the subject government cannot define itself in this general way? Do you believe it illegitimate from an un-wikipedian point of view? What source claims it is incompetent to define itself? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't terribly useful for this discussion, but sometimes we can't trust what a country says about itself. For example, the Republic of China defines itself as being far larger than it actually is, the People's Republic of China includes Taiwan, and Argentina includes the Falkland Islands and other southern lands. Not saying that applies here, since it's not like PR is disputed land, but I just wanted to point out that countries do incorrectly (in objective terms) define themselves from time to time. --Golbez (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Welcome to the U.S." pamphlet contradicts the CIA fact book and is just cherry-picking. While Sparrow says PR is part of the U.S., he is referring to the "American Empire" which he distinguishes from the "federal state" and the book elsewhere says that PR is not part of the U.S. It is not the Supreme Court decision that is wrong but Buzity's interpretation. You are accusing the United States of violating its covenant with Puerto Rico, its pronouncements to the U.N., and its own constitution, and depriving PR and other territories of their right to self-determination in violation of international law and their human rights, and need a good source for that. TFD (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants is the secondary source for the U.S.G. statement of what the U.S.A. extent is, published by the U.S. Government Printing Office. It says today, the reader is to know that the U.S. includes fifty states, a District and five self-governing territories represented in Congress.

_ _ Factbook is a tertiary on-line weekly digest of sentence fragments which says states courts and the flag are all equally part of the U.S. government. It lists governor places together with a mayor place and then lists governor places with uninhabited places. A list formatted for ready comparisons across all the countries of the world is not reliable scholarship for the United States government.

_ _ WP:CHERRYPICKING is "selecting information without significant qualifying information from the same source" and so misrepresenting what the source says. TFD says Sparrow's "federal state" does not include territories -- TFD leaves out -- territories in 1803, but it grows to include them. that is TFD cherry picking.

_ _ Sparrow says after that federal growth since 1803, "At present, the [U.S.] includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories ..." but FTD WP:MADEUP asserts somewhere else in the anthology, another unnamed author says "PR is not part of the U.S.". But we know from his referencing Lawson and Stone, TFD can take away exactly the opposite sense of the author's text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Political union with PR

@TFD dated 10:38 am, 27 January 2013 " It is not the Supreme Court decision that is wrong but Buzity's interpretation. You are accusing the United States of violating its covenant with Puerto Rico, its pronouncements to the U.N., and its own constitution, and depriving PR and other territories of their right to self-determination in violation of international law and their human rights, and need a good source for that."

What? TFD are MADEUP everything. Where is the Covenant between United States of America and Puerto Rico? There is not covenant! If you think that the covenant exist, should be very easy for you found it and post it here in black and white! However, convince for yourself, and try to find that Covenant for us and post it here; as soon you find it. The only that exist is two Law of Congress, the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act and the Puerto Rico Constitution (U.S. Public Law 600 Of 1950) "adopted in the nature of a compact". Both Puerto Rico form of government and Puerto Rico constitution are in full compliance with the US Constitution. After all, Puerto Rico actual Constitution is a Law of Congress.

By the way, I am not doing any interpretation at all. --Buzity (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

See UN Resolution 748(VIII) which refers to the "agreement reached by the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, in forming a political association...."[3] TFD (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you did not find the Covenant! You know why? Because there is not covenant between Puerto Rico and the United States. What the General Assembly of the U.N. called an "agreement reached by the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, in forming a political association." is the product of the Public Law 600. In 1950, the U.S. Congress approved Public Law 600 (P.L. 81-600), which allowed for a democratic referendum in Puerto Rico to determine whether Puerto Ricans desired to draft their own local constitution. Act of July 3, 1950, Ch. 446, 64 Stat. 319.

This Act was meant to be adopted in the "nature of a compact". It required congressional approval of the Puerto Rico Constitution before it could go into effect, and repealed certain sections of the Organic Act of 1917. The sections of this statute left in force were then entitled the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act. "''View of Congress, the Courts and the Federal Government''". Puertoricousa.com. Retrieved 2011-10-30."On The Nature Of Commonwealth V". Puertorico-herald.org. Retrieved 2011-10-30.

Then U.S. Secretary of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman, under whose Department resided responsibility of Puerto Rican affairs, clarified the new commonwealth status in this manner, "The bill (to permit Puerto Rico to write its own constitution) merely authorizes the people of Puerto Rico to adopt their own constitution and to organize a local government...The bill under consideration would not change Puerto Rico's political, social, and economic relationship to the United States.""Let Puerto Rico Decide How to end its Colony Status: True Nationhood Stands on the Pillar of Independence".

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union.Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976). --Buzity (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In relation to the support of human right and self-determination! Read this: Presidents of the United States on Puerto Rico: A Legacy of Support for Human Rights and Self‐Determination --Buzity (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The English word "covenant" is a synonym for "agreement" as is the word "compact".[4] The U.S. and Puerto Rico agreed that they should be in "political association", not that Puerto Rico should be incorporated into the United States. It may be that by retaining its colonial powers to change the PR constitution, the U.S. has not met its obligations and PR should not have been removed from the list of non-self-governing territories, but that again does not incorporate it into the U.S. PR's website says the 1950 agreement "did not change the fundamental territorial status of the island.... [It] remains an unincorporated territory of the United States." [5] Or as you just quoted the Secretary of Interior, it did not "change Puerto Rico's political...relationship to the United States", contrary to your interpretation of the Examing Board case. TFD (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Since 1950, Puerto Rico and the territories are incorporated by legislation, not judicial fiat. “Incorporated” is a term of art in jurisprudence to allow for governance without consitution or citizenship. It is not used in legislation, it refers to judicial jurisdiction which now extends in Article III federal courts to the five U.S. territories, superior to the Article I courts in the District, which no one says is not a part of the U.S.

_ _ The courts now say “incorporation” into the federal republic comes by statute enacting citizenship, and the statutes say citizenship, local republican government, courts, representation, political union with the U.S. federal republic is enacted by organic law into a status “equivalent to states”. See Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants for what U.S.G. says the U.S.A. is without U.N. Assembly objection to date, confirmed by substantial local plebiscite majorities in every territory.

_ _ The courts say citizens in territories are “irrevocably” protected by due process in the Constitution, and there are more “constitutional provisions” which apply to them than explicitly provided for by statute in the territories. That is the current status of the U.S. federal republic including Northern Marianas, Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Both the U.S. and PR claim that PR is"unicorporated", and reliable sources agree. You are free to hold a view different from them but this is not a forum to argue it. TFD (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It have been led to believe that in the Act of U.S. Public Law 600 of 1950, a "new political status was created" an "Associated State" in which Puerto Rico ceased to be a territory of the United States. The term "commonwealth" was substituted by the Spanish phrase "Estado Libre Asociado," which translates in English to "Free Associated State." This new name helped to emphasise the "new political status," as separate from the United States, though in association with "them" through common U.S. citizenship, common defense, common market and common currency, even though these conditions had been with us prior to 1952 as citizens of the U S. The present political ordainment is not a political status as a sovereign.

On November 27, 1953, shortly after the establishment of the Commonwealth, the General Assembly of the United Nations approved Resolution 748, removing Puerto Rico's classification as a non-self-governing territory under article 73(e) of the Charter from UN.

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union. Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976)

Free Association Status

This status would establish Puerto Rico as a sovereign nation separate from, but legally bound (on a terminable basis) to, the United States. As a general practice, free association would be preceded by recognition that Puerto Rico is a self-governing sovereign nation not part of the United States.

Puerto Rico today remain a territory of the United States. Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory part of the United States.

The United States government authorized Puerto Rico to draft its own constitution by Pub.L. 81–600, 64 Stat. 319, enacted July 3, 1950. The Constitutional Assembly met for a period of several months between 1951 and 1952 in which the document was written. The framers had to follow only two basic requirements established under Pub.L. 81–600. The first was the document must establish a republican form of government for the island. The second was the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.

What move the U.S. Congress to approved Pub.L. 81–600 of 1950?

The 1940 Democratic party platform expressed their support to a larger measure of self-government leading to statehood for Puerto Rico.

The Democratic party platform of 1940 said:

We favor a larger measure of self-government leading to statehood, for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. We favor the appointment of residents to office, and equal treatment of the citizens of each of these three territories. We favor the prompt determination and payment of any just claims by Indian and Eskimo citizens of Alaska against the United States.

The Northwest Ordinance process (1787)

Puerto Rico residents are declared U.S. Citizens (1917), Puerto Rico residents are declared U.S. Citizens at birth (1952), U.S. Congress directed Puerto Rico government to organize a constitutional convention to write a constitution. (1952), The organized government of Puerto Rico makes known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood to the President and the U.S. Congress through a concurrent resolution. - December 2012

Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people and a bill of rights. The rights, privileges and immunities attendant to the United States Citizens are "respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a state of the union" through the express extension by the U.S. Congress in 1948 of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. September 12, 1967 - Article Three of the United States Constitution, was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, this law was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. --Buzity (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

PR and the U.N.

You have presented all that before. Both the U.N. and the U.S. agree that the current status falls short of `free association`status, and violates PR`s right to self-determination. However, PR remains unincorporated into the U.S. You seem not to understand that it is possible for one state to exercise any degree of sovereignty over another state short of incorporation. TFD (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither the U.S. nor the U.N. says that PR is not a part of the U.S., that's not what "associated" means, no source, only TFD MADEUP. TFD-supplied source Lawson and Sloane in 2007 said the U.S.-PR relationship met two out of three criteria by international law for "incorporation", lacking only a plebiscite with independence on the ballot.

_ _ November 2012, PR exercised its right to self-determination -- without Congress -- including "independence" on the ballot. It chose 96% for SOME form of PR-U.S. union. The only “violation” going on is the death of a preconceived notion for PR independence without the people of Puerto Rico, advanced by unsupported opinion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes they do. Please read the sources and stop using your original interpretations of them. And areas within the United States do not have the right to self-determination. It is fine that you have your own opinions on PR's legal status. But please do not represent that sources agree with you. TFD (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

For TFD, there are no links, there are no quotes. As we have seen here before on inspection by Buzity and TVH -- there is TFD MADEUP. There are imaginary meanings from unspecified texts taken from primary documents without corroborating scholarship to interpret them. I have quoted sources with links that can be confirmed by a word search in the document, backed up by government publications and scholarly sources.

_ _ TFDs one secondary source cited to date, Lawson and Sloane, supports including territories because PR and the other territories have -- 1. autonomous governance equivalent to a state, i.e. no royal governor to veto territory legislature. Done. -- 2. constitutional protections virtually equal to that held by citizens in states; lack of presidential ballot is not required. Done.

_ _ 3. Although two elements are sufficient to establish incorporation along with previous congress-sponsored plebiscites, -- in 2007, TFD's Lawson and Sloane wanted to see self-determination expressed with a ballot choice, "independence". In November 2012, without congress, PR held a plebiscite with "independence" on the ballot and an 80% turnout. The people of Puerto Rico chose political union with the U.S. by 96%.

_ _ The subject of a 1950s U.N. resolution on PR status is now superseded there, and the subject cannot get on the Assembly agenda, although re-investigation is sponsored by a Special Committee. U.N. proceedings without a majority in the General Assembly cannot be used to define Wikipedia country-article editorial policy -- it fails the test of WP:NOTABILITY. The U.S.G. publication, "Welcome to the United States" says, the U.S. includes the territories; Professor Sparrow in a scholarly publication on territories since 1803, says at present the U.S. includes the territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A scholar and U.N. Res. 748, 742

I have provided sources or links for everything I have written and cannot be bother to add them each time I post a reply to you. You keep presenting arguments without providing any source that actually accepts them. If you are unclear about any of the issues raise, just list them and I will repeat the sources. The U.N. resolutions I presented, confirming that PR is not part of the U.S., were supported by the U.S. and approved by the U.N. TFD (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD has one unarchived link reference to “U.N. Resolution” here. Rather than editor interpretation of a primary document, we may refer to a reliable secondary source linked for Thornburgh 2007. Res. 748 interpreted by TFD to prove PR "separation" from U.S. federal republic, but a scholar says "commonwealth" is a federal creation and is alterable within "the U.S. constitutional process".

_ _ Former Republican U.S. Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh in |Puerto Rico’s Future: a time to decide (2007) p. 63-64, notes Res. 748 in 1952, removes PR from places requiring decolonization and self-government, it did so by finding the criteria for removal in Res. 742 stating. -- 1. Representation without discrimination in [Congress].-- 2. Citizenship without discrimination. -- Thus it CANNOT be claimed the U.N. declares PR apart from the U.S., BECAUSE a scholar, says Res. 742 means PR is a part of the U.S. federal republic with the same representation in Congress as all previous U.S. territories since 1784, and U.S. citizenship likewise without individual discrimination as of 1952. Further, TFDs source Lawson and Sloane says, PR rights and privileges have continually only expanded as a part of the U.S. since then.

_ _ But wait, look inside the U.S. system. -- After noting the close U.N. vote, and the report of a Republican representative that indicated PR lacked all rights of statehood in 1966, Thornburgh then discusses the 2005 dissenting judges in the Igartua v. U.S. case. He concludes, if Congress does not enact statehood, judicial action will take the form of declaratory relief, it could happen. (Thornburgh, p. 67). -- Yet again, there is another switch inside the U.N. and U.S. systems. -- Thornburgh reports the U.N. G.A. Res 748 (VIII) para. 9. required, ‘due regard will be paid ... that EITHER of the parties to the mutually agreed association may desire any change in the terms of this association’. Thus, Resolution 748 recognizes that Puerto Rico’s ‘commonwealth’ status "is a creation of federal statute and can be altered in accordance with the U.S. constitutional process … “ (Thornburgh, p.64). Additionally, TFDs source, Lawson and Sloane, says PR has chosen Commonwealth for its economic advantage, so there is no fault to find with its status without statehood.

_ _ A secondary SOURCE dismisses an interpretation of U.N. G.A. Res. 748 to mean PR is separate from the U.S. But for both U.N. and U.S. -- regard for Puerto Rican self-determination in territories -- REQUIRES a majority of citizens in Puerto Rico to change status, and the people of Puerto Rico have NOT chosen statehood or independence yet. Without change in status, the article should state that the U.S. territories are included in the U.S. federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My two bits---I think The Four Deuces definitely has the upper hand here, and I commend him/her for advocating the more accurate analysis of Puerto Rico's status (and yes, I've been to PR; I took the photo for WP of Isla Verde). It looks like TheVirginiaHistorian has never studied close reading and has no idea what documents are legally binding and what are not; most of the garbage he/she has cited would be virtually irrelevant under Skidmore/Mead analysis and is certainly not entitled to Chevron deference. Of course, I'm probably a bit of a snob when it comes to textual analysis, as I survived the grueling experience of undergraduate English courses at the university with the highest-ranked English department in the United States. (Try Google if you don't know.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Close reading is original research of the narrow and exceptional, not reference to the interpretation of reliable secondary sources for use by a general international reader. In this case the aesthetic of "the official United States of America" involves INCLUDING island people in the U.S. as provided for by congressional organic acts, scholarly sources and stipulated government publications, or EXCLUDING them by referencing primary documents of judcial fiat by 1904 Insular Cases without scholarly support.

_ _ Wikipedia writing is not to be cinematic subtextual criticism. There it doesn't matter what is verifiable concerning the producer on the day of shooting, as one of my not-historian, cinemagraphic heros said, "it's about me making my case [for my aesthetic]; I either convince you or I don't." See "An hour with Quentin Tarantino", aired on Charlie Rose. Tarantino himself distinguishes "real history" and "illuminating art" and "exploitation" films, -- Actually, all wikipedia editors could profit from absorbing Tanatino's intellectual distinctions, and choose "real history" for the encyclopedia.

_ _ Wikipedians look for published scholars in reliable academic sources to help us write verifiable text, rather than the original research demanded in “close reading” of primary sources. NO editor should by his own "close reading", pretend "what primary documents are legally binding". You may note, I only reference with citation, two related resolutions passed the same day which TFD WP:CHERRYPICKs only one, not the TWO same-day resolutions related by a scholar in the field, a former U.S. Attorney General. TFD cherrypicked because there is NO scholarly source to support the "exclude territories" view. And, you have a wonderful English degree.

_ _ HOWEVER, TFDs one secondary source supports INCLUDING territories. He WP:CHERRYPICK the outvoted founding father quoted in the preface who disagreed with incorporating territories -- NOT the sense of the whole article. "Lawson and Sloane", tfd’s L&S, analyze PR in their article by three U.N. resolution criteria: -- 1. local autonomous government (not army of Insular Cases, not Interior Department of Cold War) DONE for PR, says tfd’s L&S. – 2. virtually the same rights and privileges as citizens in states, representation in Congress equivalent to all preceding territories made into states, DONE for PR, says tfd’s L&S, and not voting for president does not disqualify.

_ _ In 2007, PR lacked only a plebiscite with “independence” on the ballot to meet the third requirement for U.N. self-determination, according to tfd’s L&S. That was met in PR without Congress, November 2012, with 4% voting for “independence”, 96% to maintain political union with the U.S. The official U.S.G. publication “Welcome to America” calls on our skills in close reading. It says the official U.S.A. includes states, District and five territories, all with three-branch self government and representation in Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

When in your opinion did PR become incorporated into the United States and what specific action made that happen? If it was a series of actions, which specific action may incorporation final? TFD (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure you should keep feeding the trolls. Your incredible patience and good faith attempts to convince them is amazing, but it's clear that it's having about as much effect as talking to the typical crazy homeless person. (Or dog. Or cat.) They keep coming back with mountains of garbage which they themselves don't understand. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, but let us continue to assume good faith for a while longer. It is pretty clear that TFD did not read his one-and-only independently arrived-at secondary source. It seems he saw a search-engine snippet quote from 1803, fifteen years after the fact by an outvoted founding father, outvoted in 1784 Congress, outvoted at the Northwest Ordinance, outvoted at the Constitutional Convention referred to, and lastly at the Louisiana Purchase Congress, the point of his complaining letter.

_ _ It was Gary Lawson and Robert D. Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, 2009, on pages 1164-5, Puerto Rico’s Legal status reconsidered. The piece led off with G. Morris, ltr 4 Dec 1803 quote, “when we should acquire Canada and Louisiana it would be proper to govern them as provinces, and allow them no voice in our councils.” p.1124. -- This was meant as a literary device in the law journal to engage the reader with a provocative quotation. Those who studied in good college English departments know that a teaser is not always the conclusion of the author -- on reading the piece -- which we ask wikipeidans to do here on Talk pages. The pattern is for "exclude territory" editors to hold onto tertiary list-source digests as academic authority. Such is difficult to characterize for one such as Coolcaesar from a background in rigorous intellectual community, but please let's all be patient, wikipedia can be a place of collaborative growth.

_ _ This demonstrated misunderstanding of how to handle sources in a scholarly context may be why there are no secondary sources from reliable academic publications for the “exclude territory” view. Could you give them an assist? We could treat this page as a college seminar or a graduate tutorial. All the "exclude territory" primary documents are without sourced interpretation; they are non-admissible. The unlinked “all sources say” is not a source, etc. Primary documents casually mentioned are frequently without links or text quotes to search the documents or the internet for their CONTEXT, neither chronological nor narrative. Their secondary sources, whether Lawson and Stone or Sparrow in Levinson cannot be referenced in text and if they are read, the sources do not support the “exclude territories” editors without WP:CHERRYPICK. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of term "illegal aliens"

Section 10, demographics, includes the term "illegal aliens." This is inaccurate and ought to be changed to "undocumented immigrants." Herdeep (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The source used in the article states "illegal alien." You need to defend, using sources, why it is wrong. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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).[6] 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 [182 U.S. 244, 322] 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.' [8 Stat. at L. 202.] (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. [15 Stat. at L. 542.]

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."[7] 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, [economic considerations] 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 [they] … 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. [It is] 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 [does not require] 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 [is] 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 [Congress, Parliament] is met "according to its [U.S.] 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. Wikipedia 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, [they] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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, [economic considerations] 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% [30% total], sovereign commonwealth [i.e. northern marianas] 33% [17% total] , independence 6% [3% total].

_ _ 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 Wikipedia 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% [30% total], sovereign commonwealth [i.e. northern marianas] 33% [17% total] , independence 6% [3% total]. 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. Wikipedia 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 [i.e. northern marianas] 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)

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. [ note ], with links –

_ ( II ) The intro [ note ] 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. [Aside] 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)

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 [i] 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 [ii] a book, for “including territories” in “Lousiana Purchase and American Expansion”, [iii] (4) a contributor from Boston College and (5) the co-editor from Texas U., and [iv] 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 Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia 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)

USPS states/territories v. military

Could you edit down your sources? The Postal Service "State" tab for example lists Puerto Rico under "State/Possession".[8] 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 [example] does not prove the [proposition]". But the "include territories" argument had it, "The [proposition] is proven by [scholarly sources], followed by supporting [examples]."

_ _ 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)

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/^2¢/_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/^2¢/_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/^2¢/_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/^2¢/_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."[1][2] The country is situated mostly in central North America, ...

[note 1] "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.

[note 2] "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)

I think that's a good phrasing, though I get the impression that the structure of the notes is going to become a bit contentious. I really think ideally we should forgo explanatory notes in the lede where possible, leaving the complexities to a later section where we can address things in a more elaborate fashion that the format of a note doesn't lend itself to. I also would prefer not to use the USCIS document as a source of an example of usage; I feel like in that regard it becomes a primary source. Instead, I'd prefer a document that actually discusses what "United States of America" means or implies (sort of like Black's, though I'd call that a tertiary source). Then again, I understand that's not something simple to find. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 671-72 (1945) (Stone, J.), overruled on other grounds by Limbach v. Hooven & Allison Co., 466 U.S. 353 (1984)

More generally, by the way, I'd advise checking out the definition in 77 Am. Jur. 2d United States § 1. It heavily cites Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), which itself dealt in depth with the definition of the term "United States" in statutory interpretation. It's clear from that opinion and from the encyclopedia article in Am. Jur. 2d (note: a tertiary source) that there are indeed a number of meanings to the term which can lead to serious implications for the country both dealing with domestic and international law. This is why I think VH has been so insistent. It is a big deal, and it is so fundamental to the understanding of what the United States is, that it should not be overlooked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The distinction between judicial incorporation and congressional incorporation is imaginary. Nothing has been provided to support such a distinction, nor is it helpful in any meaningful way. I think the most that can be said about the status of PR and some other territories is that their status vis a vis incorporation is disputed. Period. older ≠ wiser 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Who's talking about incorporation? I'm just talking about definition of the term "United States". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little irked at VH continuing to bring up Palmyra Atoll in the intro; so far as I recall, not one person here has suggested it be included in the intro. It is a curiosity best dealt with later in the article. It's beginning to smell of a straw man.

As for your question about "definition of the term United States," I touched on this sometime back, in this section. Basically, there is the United States proper, which I and others say is the incorporated regions of the fifty states and federal district (and some include Palmyra), and then there is the wider sphere of the United States, which all of us say includes the uninhabited island territories, and the question is, where do the inhabited island territories fall. It's analogous to the difference between Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark, or New Zealand and the Realm of New Zealand, etc. The problem is that the U.S. does not maintain different terms for its core and its outer. --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

TVH in the two Notes he proposes in the draft. Incorporation appears to be at or near the core of this entire discussion. older ≠ wiser 21:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And it looks like United States territory#Territory of the United States makes essentially the point that I'm making above: the definition of "United States" is indeed a matter of some complexity. My take is where there's complexity, at the very least we should mention the complexity with a reference to a section or sub-article discussing the complexity in depth... basically using summary style as much as possible. Seriously, the very definition of the term whose basic concept the article sets out to address seems per se relevant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so getting back to the question for the lede... could we bury the issue with this wording? "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." We can then throw a brief discussion of the lexical ambiguity of the term "United States" in the political divisions section, with a reference to the subarticle where it's discussed more in depth. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that wording for the lede is just fine, but how is it different from the current language? older ≠ wiser 21:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Basically, it removes the concern VH brought up re: the implication that the current wording is exclusive rather than inclusive. The phrase "which includes" is fairly equivalent to "consists of" in my mind, but given VH posited it I feel that by compromising on that ground may assist a resolution of this dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my issue is with any expression of the U.S. in the country article exclusive of any U.S. citizens. The term "United States" at Hooven & Allison Co above says, may be the name of a sovereign ... in the family of nations. The U.S.G. defines itself as a federal republic of citizens, not sovereign states since the American Civil War. Mendaliv would begin with Blackstone, but admits there may be more.

_ _ Blackstone is received into the U.S. legal tradition in the 19th century primarily through St. George Tucker, “Blackstone’s Commentaries”. But he wrote in 1803 from a tradition without the benefit of John Marshall's jurisprudence, and apart from the Federalist Papers and his predecessor as Chief Justice, John Jay, a co-author of the Federalist Papers. -- In 1803, Tucker saw the representatives of the people, the legislature, as the sovereign. In a democratic republic, the people apart from their government (state, district, territory) is seen as the sovereign, informed by James Madison in the Federalist Papers or by Jose Rizal in the former Spanish possessions who sought full Spanish citizenship for Filipinos, Cubans and Puerto Ricans, equal protection of the law, and representation in the Spanish Cortes Generales. Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address expresses the democratic republic best, a government not of place but of the people, its citizens.

_ _ I think that the country article should define the extent of the country as that de facto, de jure government does. U.S. constitutional practice says if territorial organic acts are accepted in a local referendum, the union is "perpetual" (congress) or "irrevocable" (courts). If there are alternative views concerning its extent, the alternative view should be represented in a footnote. But I have agreed to defer to the two guidelines laid out by Mendaliv. [ I ] "For the purposes of the lede, we must be simple and straightforward." which three alternatives might be, among variations, (a) the U.S. federal constitutional republic which includes 50 states and other subdivisions [1][2]", (b) "... including 50 states and the District of Columbia [1][2]", (c) "... includes 50 states, a federal district and five territories[1][2]." AND [ II ] Statements should be "supported by a reasonable selection of the best secondary sources on both sides." --

_ _ NOW WE SEE discussion that part II is not necessary for agreement. Golbez summed up the "exclude territories" difficulty in finding any scholarly support. “The problem is that the U.S. does not maintain different terms for its core and its outer.” That may be because they are included as a part of the U.S. There is no "core and outer", only equal citizenship under the law in the U.S. federal republic for the 21st century country article including U.S. territories. I imagine the possibility of another aspect to the composition of the U.S., but are there any secondary sources to the contrary to support it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"There is no "core and outer"" Sure there is; no one here thinks that Wake is part of the U.S., but an attack on Wake would be an attack on the U.S. It is part of that outer sphere. --Golbez (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wake is not a part of the federal republic, it is an unorganized possession. Unorganized possessions under the direct administration of the Department of Interior such as Wake Island are unpopulated; U.S. citizens and nationals in organized territories are a part of the U.S., palm trees and seagulls are possessions of it. The extent of the U.S. federal republic is its constitutional government over citizens in states, federal district and five organized territories. Since 1805, territories perpetually incorporated into the U.S. have had three-branch republican forms of self-governance, U.S. citizens acknowledging the supremacy of the Constitution and Congress by referendum, and representation in Congress with the privilege of floor debate without a minimum population.

_ _ Congress has used the Territories Clause to alter territorial laws, constitutions and boundaries over that period of time until each statehood. In 2013, this is the constitutional practice of an internationally recognized independent state upholding human rights, granting full citizenship with equal protections, and representation in the national councils as allowed by the United Nations for a population to be considered under a government by their own self-determination, scholars describe it as "autonomous self-government, equivalent to states".

_ _ In the France article, the official "Republic of France" allows for continental France, Corsica and organized territories with French citizens. In the United States article, the official "United States of America" should ALSO ALLOW for the continental United States, Hawaii and organized territories with U.S. citizens. The tables for France report "Municipal France" in the OECD databases of continental France and Corsica only. The tables for United States similarly report continental U.S. and Hawaii only. Why is the idea of "include territories" so difficult to accept? It is not lack of sources, and Wake is not a part of the organized territories under discussion these four months. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Black's v. "Welcome"

If the problem with finding a source for the definition of United States that supports a more exclusive definition, Black's Law Dictionary, 9th ed., does it just fine: the 50 states and D.C.; no mention of the territories. American Jurisprudence, 2d ed., attests that there are multiple conflicting definitions. The fact is, for the bulk of this article, we need not delve into these subtleties. It matters for the purposes of the political divisions subsection, and to a lesser extent, to the lede. VH, it's clear you're a learned scholar on this topic, but you're flat out wrong in contending that we should go by the government definition (whatever that may be; I think Hooven & Allison indicates that this is very much unclear). This is Wikipedia. We go by published, scholarly sources... reporting on disagreements between sources where necessary, and giving due weight to the varying viewpoints. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it depends on the one or two words being suggested. :) --Golbez (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading the Hooven & Allison quote shows a jurist may responsibly choose among three usages. And these may be other than usage for an encyclopedia intended for general readership. There is no source for the U.S. as 50 states and DC excluding five organized territories held out by "exclude territories" editors during four months of daily discussion. Now we have "Black's Law Dictionary", which is derivative of jurisprudence usage, not congressional usage.

_ _ "Exclude territory" editors cite the Insular Cases to say territories are incorporated when Congress makes them explicitly so. But in the Insular Case Rassmussen, we see Alaska declared "incorporated" because the Court said Congress intended incorporation on making U.S. citizens there, albeit not using "incorporated" in the act organizing it.

_ _ Black's may be a source of subtleties which are best discussed where jurisprudential distinctions naturally arise in a legal context. But there are no "subtleties" in what the U.S.G. officially tells immigrants intending to become U.S. citizens in "Welcome to the United States". Regardless of conflicting scholarly definitions in 100 years of citations at Black's, in 2013 for an encyclopedia intended for general readership, "The U.S. includes 50 states, the District ..., and the [five organized] territories", as sourced at "Welcome". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Exclude territories" use of 'Judicial incorporation'

The judge-made "incorporation" of certain territory and "unincorporation" of others on the basis of their non-Anglo Saxon traditions created a "political apartheid" as described by federal jurists writing as scholars in journals. One modern federal jurist referred to the distinction made without Congressional sanction of law, "a judicial fiat." Their cases are taken together primarily from those 1901-1904, treating U.S. occupation and governance of former Spanish colonies of populations with island cultures on Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. In historical and legal literature these cases and their successors are called the "Insular Cases".

By the 21st century they are virtually moot, as citizenship with fundamental constitutional protections is extended to all existing organized territories, one Justice observed their reasoning may not be further extended, and U.S.G. usage no longer makes any such practical distinction, as territories are "equivalent to the states" in their rights and privileges as found in historical literature and judicial holdings in the 21st century. Nevertheless, the Insular Cases have been for over four months, the primary source of quotations supporting the "exclude territories" editorial position. Some examples of (a) the "judicially incorporated" Palmyra without congressional statute and (b) the "congressionally incorporated" Puerto Rico (1952), but only incorporated judicially in 2005, follow for October, November, December and January.

Golbez. ( i ) -- "I never equated Puerto Rico with Palmyra, because Puerto Rico is a possession of the United States whereas Palmyra Atoll is part of it." --Golbez 6:28 pm, 28 October 2012. -- " 'The U.S. geographical extent is 50 states, a federal district and five territories.' No it's not. (Also, five? What happened to Palmyra?)" --Golbez 10:25 am, 5 November 2012. "… you can't ignore the unique and elevated status of Palmyra Atoll, it is an incorporated territory under the Constitution and not merely an "associated island." --Golbez 9:25 am, 4 December 2012. Golbez ( ii ) "I'm a little irked at VH continuing to bring up Palmyra Atoll in the intro; so far as I recall, not one person here has suggested it be included in the intro." --Golbez. 4:13 pm, 12 February 2013

TFD ( i ) -- "I hope the people of Puerto Rico choose either statehood or independence, so we can stop this silly discussion.", TFD. 8:15 pm, 10 January 2013. TFD ( ii ) "I have never said that U.S. territories should become independent. And section III [of TVH December and February compromise offers] does not address any "bilateral disputes over U.S. territory" [a category suggested byTVH referencing State Department 2013 update report on Insular Affairs] . TFD 11:52 am, 7 February 2013.

older ≠ wiser ( i )-- "What bearing does the administrative or legal status of a territory have on the 'geographical extent' of the U.S. (or vice versa). [What bearing does geographic extent of a country have on the legal status of a territory]." older ≠ wiser 12:23 am, 21 December 2012. -- "Congress change how citizenship is awarded to residents of the territories. But the fact that Palmyra has no permanent residents makes that factor irrelevant in any case." older ≠ wiser 8:41 am, 21 December 2012. -- older ≠ wiser ( ii ) -- "The distinction between judicial incorporation [of an uninhabited unorganized island] and congressional incorporation [of populations in self-government] is imaginary." older ≠ wiser 3:53 pm, 12 February 2013.

"Exclude territories" editors will not admit to any secondary source, nor U.S. statute nor jurisprudence since 1962, a fifty-year no-fly zone imposed on sources for an encyclopedia of general readership in the 21st century. I propose dropping the use of judicial incorporation to "exclude territories". Insular Cases 1901-1904 authorizing denial of citizenship without protection of the laws, are now superseded by statute and case law. The world of 1904 should not be made the determining editorial policy for a U.S. country-article in 2013. The extent of the U.S. federal constitutional republic should be reported as "including 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories", as supported by scholarly secondary and confirming primary sources in the 21st century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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%)

Religious affiliation in the U.S. (2012)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.181.100 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 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, [Torres v. Puerto Rico], 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)

Please see [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America for continued discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Are we dealing with facts or not?

Territories

On the Territories of the United States page it says this in the lede ...

Territories of the United States are a type of political division that is directly overseen by the United States
federal government, in contrast to the states, which share sovereignty with the federal government.

While the territories are not actual states themselves they still belong to and are subject to the laws of the US, per the federal government. Seems most of the debate is over 'what extent' the territories are included and governed. Can't we find a source that makes this distinction? Don't even ask me to wade through this debate, as it is unnecessarily and unusually long and IMO all this editor arm wrestling has accomplished little other than to alienate other users. If there are conflicting sources then simply say 'Source A says this -- Source B says that' , then strike a compromise and be done with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. That's the idea. The problem seems to lie more in WP:DUE considerations insofar as weighing different sources in an article that necessarily must give a very broad overview of the topic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is terminology: The term "territory" is used both for internal (e.g. Arizona Territory) and external (e.g. Wake Island) territories. No one (so far as I recall) has said Wake is part of the country. In the past this division has been shown by the use of the terms "incorporated" and "unincorporated." The pertinent question is, what side do the populated territories fall on? Are they still unincorporated territories as stated by court rulings from early in the 20th century, or, through actions of Congress, have they become de facto, though not explicitly, incorporated? Gwillhickers, I don't see any compromise happening on either side. Even if I was willing to compromise on VH's stance, and I'm probably closer to that than he thinks, I am not willing to compromise the integrity of the articles, and large amounts of research and edits would be needed to accommodate his proposed change, and he fails to understand this. --Golbez (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Territories of the United States needs work. U.S. constitutional practice is historically 1. directly overseen administered by executive department, War or Interior, 2. territories with appointed government, 3. locally autonomous territorial government, 4. statehood. The only territories directly overseen by the United States in contrast to the states in 2013 are the nine uninhabited possessions administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior. The five organized territories now have locally autonomous government established by congressional organic act and adopted by resident population. By law in 1785 for territory ceded by the states, then for that subsequently acquired since 1805, the territory is then incorporated with congressional organic acts when accepted by local referendum. -- But not until then, hence Jefferson's fear of early Louisiana splitting off before incorporation in the Burr-Wilkinson conspiracy with the Spanish.

_ _ For the Arizona case, cited by Golbez, there was (a) unincorporated of territory from the "Mexican Cession" organized into a territory with Article I federal courts and federal marshals, a Presidentially appointed governor and elected legislature which served at the pleasure of the governor, and Congress can change these boundaries and constitutions until statehood, then (b) an incorporated Arizona Territory of locally elected republican government, fundamental rights of the Constitution, petitioned Congress based on convention and referendum, Congressional acceptance, Article III federal courts and a Member of Congress with floor privileges in the House of Representatives, then (c) petition for and admission to statehood.

_ _ Integrity of country-articles may be seen for WP at the official extent of the Republic of France, reported as France, Corsica and territories with French citizens -- charts, tables and graphs based on OECD data show "Metropolitan France" of continental France and Corsica. Likewise, the official extent of the U.S. of America should be states, DC and organized territories with citizens -- charts, tables and graphs based on Census data may show continental U.S. and Hawaii. All five organized U.S. territories are reported in Census of population, economy and agriculture statistically as states since 1990. WP articles should show readily available sourced material, not original research. Territorial data from French and U.S. territories do not effect their relative international ranking on any inspected metric of population, economy or agriculture. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly viewpoints: majority, prominent, minority, original

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to
substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.

If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then
it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should
certainly address the controversy without taking sides.

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then
_whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it
doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary
article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

excerpts from Jimbo Wales
WikiEN-l e-mail 2003-09-29
quoted in WP:UNDUE

I'm coming to a similar conclusion. While I'm all for minor tweaks, such as to verbiage, to accommodate concerns that a significant viewpoint is not being represented, this needs to be balanced with keeping things a manageable length. The current lede, for example, is bordering on unwieldy in my opinion. That's why I've tried to invoke WP:UNDUE a bit here. We should easily be able to find sources to support that what "United States" means is contentious, or that there are multiple views (see my Am. Jur. 2d cite above). VH's sourcing fails to really answer the question of why his viewpoint should be considered significant or substantial. The immigrant guide is a primary source and mere attestation that the phrase "United States" has the asserted sense. I'm not so sure about VH's textbook reference either; it seems more like an attestation than affirmation that a disagreement exists. Am. Jur. 2d is a tertiary source that actually talks about the ambiguity of the phrase. Thus, I suggest we simply tweak the wording a bit, maybe acknowledge the ambiguity in a section (not the lede), and cite Am. Jur. 2d. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If an allowance is made in the lede for the ambiguity, we must make it clear that the article itself (not to mention dozens of other articles) treats the country as not including the territories. Which then makes one wonder why we need to allow for the ambiguity. :) --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, at this point I'm saying a one- or two-word change to the lede would accomplish the end I'm talking about. While I see your point, there is fair evidence that the term is ambiguous and is used in multiple manners. The Corpus Juris Secundum article on the point is actually quite detailed, and extensively covers at least three if not more ways in which the phrase "United States" is used. Also, it might be worth looking over Sparrow's chapter and get VH's quotation in context; Sparrow doesn't really state that the phrase "United States" always includes by reference the territories and possessions. In fact, he seems to support the contention that it's a matter of some disagreement. There being disagreement, we could discuss it. But for the purposes of the lede, again, a one- or two-word change wouldn't promote one definition over another, and may permit the discussion to move forward. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If we are now going to look at sources, this is real progress. That is a key to my interest in mediation. We have scholarly sources in law journals and academic publication, federal judges publishing as scholars, court decisions, statutes, executive orders, primary U.S.G. source usage all saying "include territories".

_ _ After four months' searching for "exclude territories" sources, there has been none none but one tertiary and primary sources of challenged interpretation. Now we have Black's to exclude territories, a quote there to say "U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S. federal republic", correct? Although a dictionary is a tertiary source is it not, so a scholarly source would be better.

_ _ "The immigrant guide is a primary source and mere attestation that the phrase "United States" has the asserted sense." Yes, my assertion is not made up on my own authority, nor is it my own interpretation. That's good, right? and not merely good, since there is nothing equal or better for the "exclude territory" position for the first four months of discussion. The U.S.G. in "Welcome" says of what the United States consists: fifty states, a federal district and five organized territories. It is published by a reliable source in a coherent narrative style, and it imparts clear intended meaning. A little help, I'll accept instruction, how is that disqualifying?

_ _ (a) If we can find a secondary source which says the federal republic extends to citizens in territories, as Congress has administered the U.S. territories since 1805, then the extent of the U.S. federal republic is states, federal district and five organized territories. (b) If we can find a secondary source which says the U.S. federal republic is judicially incorporated states and federal district but NOT "incorporated" Palmyra Atoll, then the extent of the U.S. federal republic is "states and federal district", seems to me. (c) And, if sources say both judicial and congressional incorporation are in play, as I believe they are because the Court says more privileges convey with citizenship than congressional enumeration in territorial organic statutes as enacted, then we can balance the two, with an eye to "due weight", Congress being the First Branch. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wanted: collegial editors

While wiki-editors trained in logic and law need not be trained to read secondary sources of history -- as this post previously implied in error-- a reminder. The U.S. has a history of territories, and U.S. territories have a four-stage life cycle. These possible changes do not mean that a territorial status at the present time cannot be clearly discerned 1. possession: military governor (or Dept. of Interior since 1950s). 2. unincorporated: presidentially appointed governor with nationals, 3. incorporated: locally elected governor with citizens, 4. statehood.

Earlier wiki editor readers of historians in the Levinson anthology were disconcerted at authors reporting different things at different times for different things, and different historians differing in their emphasis. One Wiki-editor simply concluded that the "internal inconsistencies" made the volume inadmissible as a source. I reverted implication here that wikieditors need be schooled as historians -- over the top on my part, apologies to all. It enough to imagine a community of collegial editors guided by WP:SOURCES that are from Secondary source.

Secondary sources include opinions based on a scholar's research. But "Include territories" secondary sources are dismissed by this: "The opinion of an expert arguing against [wiki-editor] consensus and therefore cannot be presented as a fact." TFD 4:59 pm, 21 December 2012. This may explain the misguided reliance on tertiary sources by the "exclude territories" editors searching for impartial "facts" in dictionaries and digests. But WP policy would NOT have an editor consensus at an article page to exclude scholarly opinion from a reliable source published in an academic journal, nor would it "exclude territories". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

With all due respect, VH, your use of sources represents unpublished synthesis from published sources (WP:SYN). Your quote from Sparrow doesn't support your position when read in context, and the immigration pamphlet is a mere attestation of one out of several definitions of "United States" (and frankly, I don't think that's a scholarly source in the first place). As to tertiary sources, there is nothing wrong with their use in directing editors' understanding of scholarly research into a broad topic, and Wikipedia policy does not exclude their use as sources (WP:PSTS).

As to proposals counseling compromise based on what sub-articles such as Territories of the United States, please note that the current structure of that article does not necessarily reflect the consensus in secondary sources. It is not so simple as making sure this article reflects what we say in other articles, but a matter for reviewing the group of articles that this broad article implicates. As such, I strongly advise that all discussion move to WikiProject United States so as to ensure the broadest possible participation by interested and involved editors. I have begun a discussion there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Do the active editors who are engaged in the lengthy discussion that has already occurred wish to continue the discussion here, or is it their wish to begin a new discussion at WP:US?

I would prefer to keep the discussion here, and bring active editors from the various US related WikiProjects to gather further opinions about the discussion at hand.

As for myself, it is my personal view that the United States can be treated as the incorporated element, and the United States inclusive all territories, citizens, and nationals (those born in American Samoa and Swains Island are Nationals, not Citizens). I understand that this brings up issues regarding the inclusion of the American diaspora (for instance there are over 300 thousand in the Philippines, and the population of the entire islands had their nationality revoked in 1934 (but prior could be called Americans ;-) )), and United States-owned diplomatic facilities; that being said, there is a place to elaborate on that and not in the lead of this article, which should be as inclusive and be as summarized as possible.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

@ RightCowLeftCoast. Agreed. But should we wait until further discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America for continued discussion? So far I've discussed October and November, waited for Request for Comment December - no reply, Third party January - said wrong wikipedia does little harm-, 'Mediation' February with the answer above, I've misread the context, but no context provided other than that I quoted, "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” Still no conflicting sources, but administrator Golbez promises to revert "and five organized territories" if I do not first agree to change all related articles. I think the introduction on this page is illustrated by the Infobox on this page, and that is all I am responsible to align as a contributing editor. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Mendaliv. "VH, your use of sources represents unpublished synthesis from published sources" -- What synthesis have I made from, "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories.” ??? My point is that I can quote my position from a source, and there is no source to be quoted to "exclude territories", but your challenged tertiary construct, a piece of original inference without secondary backup.

_ _ Tertiary sources are not "excluded", they are merely subordinate to secondary sources and primary sources WP:SOURCES.

_ _ Attestation to ONE of the uses of United States for the 2013 United States "including territories" is one AHEAD of "excluding territories" with none. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Move the proposal to a centralized place

This proposal is also at WPUS and should be in one place only. I make the following suggestion:

• Put the proposal on a subpage. It you want it at WPUS, then make the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America, or whatever you want to call it, wherever you want to make it a sub page.
• After you have explained your proposal on the target page, then below that have two sub sections, one for "Support" and one for "Oppose".
• The proposal needs to be more widely advertised than just here. Put it on Template:Centralized discussion. . You can also go to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details and request it be put at the top of editor watchlists. But I would definitely list it at Centralized discussion.
• Because the discussion has happened both here and at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States] talk page, once you have it set up on a sub page, then also put a notice here and on the WPUS talk page where to find the proposal.

— Maile (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have done so. Please see [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America. Thank you for the recommendation, Maile! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Motto

Can we get a cite on the motto? --BalooUriza (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Open Paragraph Proposal

I am seeking consensus to change the lead sentence of the article, as suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America. My proposed change to the lead paragraph would be change the lead sentence to the following:

The United States (US or U.S.), commonly called America, and officially the United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states, a federal district, and other territories.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

From my point of view, would almost be technically correct, since it does include one territory (Palmyra). But I find 'possesses' more neutral than saying it includes. --Golbez (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, possesses is not as neutral as the more inclusive includes; possesses maybe seen by readers as saying that the country has it, but potentially not legitimetly. It is my humble opinion that includes, leaves that entirely open.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It works for the UK, where things like the Isle of Man are unambiguously possessed by the country but are also unambiguously not part of it. --Golbez (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this? "... includes fifty states and a federal district, as well as other territories and possessions." Kind of reflects the ambiguity that's present, I think. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I can agree to that compromise. So the text would read:

The United States (US or U.S.), commonly called America, and officially the United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states and a federal district, as well as other territories and possessions.

?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I might could live with this one. --Golbez (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, there are no valid sources that the U.S. has unilaterally incorporated its possessions, and it is their stated position that they hzve not, with the exception of Palymyra. If we do decide to amend the lead, then we would have to explain why some ot the territories are described by the U.S. aa non-self-governing territories and why people born there do not become U.S. citizens. TFD (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Though, the only real government statement on incorporation comes from the Insular Cases, does it not? Has Congress or the Executive ever explicitly backed up that terminology? Do we have any source, for example, that the entirety of the Constitution does not currently apply to the inhabited territories? --Golbez (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The sentence makes no statement about incorporated or unincorporated, it is ambiguous regarding that subject and differentiation. The purpose of the lead sentence is to define the scope of the article. As has been discussed elsewhere on the talk page, the specifics and the differing points of view can be elaborated elsewhere in the body of the article, or in related articles whose scope is about those specifics.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The Citizenship Clause of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is the subject of a recent movie, Lincoln, reads, "All persons born... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...." Yet it does not apply to any of the territories except where Congress has extended it. Persons born in American Samoa for example are not citizens of the United States. The U.S. btw uses the terminology of incorporated and unicorporated territories and only Palmyra is called incorporated. TFD (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The use of the words incorporated and unincorporated is a bit problematic. They obviously have a particular meaning in the USA, but different meanings (or no meaning at all) elsewhere. The article Unincorporated area and it's talk page make this clear. This is a global encyclopaedia, and there's little point in using those words in the lead of this article unless they are clearly meaningful to at least English speakers outside the USA. It's a tricky area. The concept is clearly meaningful to some of the American editors here, but I had never heard the terms until I discovered them on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's absolutely meaningless even to most Americans. I honestly don't think it's relevant to the lede to get into that nitty gritty level of detail that necessarily requires in-depth explanation to make sense of for the uninitiated. Cover it in a subsection, not the lede. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

While they are specifically American, the concepts are universal. When a state acquires territory, it may or may not become part of the state. So Alsace-Lorraine became part of France, but the French occupation zone of Germany did not. I can think of only two states other than the U.S. that have incorporated territories, Canada and Australia. But both of those countries were created by federating unincorporated territories of the U.K. TFD (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

An interesting question. I believe France's territories are considered incorporated into the French Republic (New Caledonia, St Martin, etc.). Likewise, it is a fun exercise as to if Hong Kong and Macau could be considered incorporated territories of China. The question of the realms of Denmark and the Netherlands complicate those matters. Oh! India has incorporated territories, the Union Territories. Also, Mexico and Brazil both had incorporated territories in the past. --Golbez (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

AGREE to, “is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states and a federal district, as well as other territories and possessions.” Of RightCowLeftCoast, Mendaliv, Golbez.

_ _ Since 1805, U.S. constitutional practice for territories: 1. Possessions under Military governors, now Interior Department, NASA. (Ryukyus, Bakers Island). 2. Unincorporated territories of nationals, presidential appointed governors, elected legislatures serve at pleasure, Article I federal courts, representation in Congress with debate privilege (Philippines, early Arizona). 3. Incorporated territories by congressional organic acts for nationals establishing citizenship, locally elected governor, independent legislature, Article III federal courts, representation in Congress with debate, voting depending on the congress (late Arizona, Puerto Rico) 4. Statehood.

_ _ All five “large U.S. Territories” have self-governance equivalent to states (scholars and GAO reports). No current U.S.G. publication says Palmyra is “included” in the U.S. “Perpetual union” incorporation at Samoa is done by Samoan tribal-U.S. treaty, ratifying referendum, republican government, U.S. citizenship as acquired and taxes, Article III federal courts and representation in Congress. Samoans of citizens are citizens, all have right-of-travel, nationals gain citizenship by one-year’s citizen-soil residence.

_ _ Applying Insular Cases to 2013 U.S. territories requires editor speculation without secondary source backup. The U.S. is an internationally recognized nation-state that unilaterally incorporates by its own constitutional practice. Since 1805, only citizenship and republican government is required for territorial union in “perpetuity” by congress or “irrevocably” by federal court. The “entirety” of the Constitution requirement is unsourced for becoming “a part of the U.S.”; it is speculative abstract WP:MADEUP apart from actual U.S. history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

American Samoans are not American citizens.[9] TFD (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

But they are American nationals. I understand TFD's concerns, but where does it say the U.S. is only the areas where birthright citizenship occur?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution reads, "All persons born... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...." If American Samoa were part of the U.S., then all persons born there would be citizens of the United States. Persons born in other unincorporated territories do not have birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment - in each case an act of Congress was required. TFD (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

TFD cannot in good faith claim Samoa is “unincorporated”. He does not claim Arizona was “unincorporated” when indigenous peoples there were not U.S. citizens in the territory and not for 15 years after statehood 1910-1925. Prior to the Synder Act, they were made citizens by entering U.S. armed forces, giving up tribal affiliations, and assimilating. Similarly now for Samoa by military service – Naval Academy football coach is Samoan -- children of Samoan citizens, and nationals are made citizens with one-year citizen-soil residency anywhere in the U.S.

_ _ In each case since 1805, territory is incorporated in perpetuity by referendum and confirmed by congressional organic act with elected governors, independent legislatures, Article III federal courts and territorial congressional representation. For 200 years incorporated territories have been extended fundamental constitutional rights, but their constitutions and boundaries are not permanent until statehood -- never the entire extent of the constitution such as dual sovereignty, and all governance is subject to Congressional regulation. To substitute an another country imagined elsewhere for the U.S. constitutional practice here in 2013 is WP:MADEUP. More original reasoning about U.S. constitutional practice from TFD without secondary sources for backup. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, VH, but you are the one who cannot in good faith claim that American Samoa is "incorporated." The CIA seems to think American Samoa is an unincorporated territory. The US State Department thinks it is an unincorporated territory, as stated in the Foreign Affairs Manual, their motion to dismiss a current court case regarding Samoans and US citizenship. As you have stated, American Samoans are not simply granted automatic citizenship, as would probably be the case in an incorporated territory. We can go round and round in circles on special cases of those residing in the US proper for one year, or comparing to how natives were treated in Arizona, opening up an entire can of worms on how the US treated Native Americans differently/poorly, but that all in itself passes into original reasoning. We can go on and on about military service, and I can tell you about the Liberian I met serving at the Cape Cod Air Force Station. American Samoa can be stated, in sources, to be an unincorporated territory. Arizona Territory can be stated, in sources, to have been an incorporated territory. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I repeat my earlier comment in simpler language. Do not get into incorporated and unincorporated in the lead. Most readers will have no idea what you're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, there's no need to get into that much detail in the lead (And in fact if we do, that means we have to deal with Palmyra in the lead, and there's no reason to do that). And VH, I agree with Cobra and TFD here, he absolutely can argue in good faith that it is "unincorporated". --Golbez (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Ken Niumatalolo, the football coach for the Naval Academy, is not himself a member of the US Armed Forces, so I don't see how military status is made relevant by his example. That said, non-citizens are allowed to enlist in the US military. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Children of American Samoans, unlike formerly children of American Indians, have birthright citizenship if they are born in the U.S. The difference is that American Indians were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction", and hence were not even non-citizen nationals. TFD (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Samoan Territory non-citizens are more justly treated than Arizona Territory non-citizens; they are more surely incorporated as a part of the U.S. by its U.S. history to 2013 than Arizona's incorporation by U.S. history to 1925.

_ _ Quick timeline: 1900 Samoan “Treaty of Cession of Tutuila”; 1904 American Samoa territory by Congress; 1927 U.S. “Ratification Act of 1927”; 1967 Samoan self-rule at referendum; 1977 elective governor; 1981 representation in Congress; now universal national status by soil, right of transit, growing resident citizenship population.

_ _ This is not "round and round", but Progress to "include territories" at Talk Archive 45. The treaty of Samoan Chiefs is the "supreme law of the land" see Article VI as of 1927 ratification, incorporates Samoa. And Samoan citizens do not loose their citizenship by permanent residence, and their children are citizens by birth. Am I correct, There is no longer any sourced objection to proposed language, U.S. “is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states and a federal district, as well as other territories and possessions.”TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you are just presenting OR, changing your criteria for what constitutes incorporation into the United States whenever an example is found where your criteria do not apply. It has been pointed out to you that only Congress can incorporate foreign nations into the U.S. Regardless you need to present sources for what constitutes the U.S., not arguments. TFD (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@ TFD. Sources requested at Talk #2 above, include scholarly and U.S.G. secondary, supported by primary documents over the most recent decade. TFD quoted the Constitutional 14th Amendment to self-make a view excluding territories from “a part of the U.S.” ignoring previous posts. Since 1805, all U.S. Constitution for states has not applied to incorporated U.S. territories. That some provisions do not apply in 2013 does not “exclude territories”. Article VI shows treaties the law-of-the-land. Samoa as a foreign nation was incorporated in the Ratification Act of 1927 as passed by Congress, as sourced above, still no contrary sources from TFD.

_ _ The unchanging criteria for including territories in the intro U.S. article sentence is the 2007 U.S.G. official publication to represent the official U.S. of 2013, backed up with scholarly and government secondary sources. As at 27 January, Archive 45 ”Include territories executive orders. “The discussion now approaches a question of WP:GOODFAITH. … in Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants, page 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.”

_ _ As a matter of collegial courtesy Oct 2012-Feb 2013, every non-sourced quibble WITHOUT secondary backup is answered with legal scholars in academic publications, secondary sourced GAO reports, backup up by the most recent ten-years U.S. statutes, jurisprudence and executive orders with the force of law to “include territories”. Now writing editors have a proposal of inclusive phrasing which allows sourced and unsourced views of U.S., both the historic actuality and WP:MADEUP imaginary --- U.S. “is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states and a federal district, as well as other territories and possessions.” How can that not be satisfactory to all? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have provided extensive sources, however you have provided nothing, just OR. You say Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. because Congress made them citizens. When it is pointed out to you that American Samoans are not citizens, you mention that neither were American Indians. When I explain that the U.S. considered them to be, unlike American Samoans, non-nationals outside U.S. jurisdiction, you return to other arguements. You continue to offend other editors by referring to apartheid. Yet the U.S. government would be inviolation of international law by unilaterally incorporating other nations. And you introduce disingenuous arguments such as the Post Office delivers mail to Puerto Rico, despite the fact they deliver mail to associated states. TFD (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are we getting into the detailed arguments of incorporated and unincorporated? The lead sentence is suppose to be a simple summarization of the subject, just as much as the lead section is suppose to be a summarization of the article (without becoming overtly detailed).

Let me give examples; attacks on Guam, the Philippines, Wake Island, and Hawaii were just as much attacks on the United States even though those, using the incorporated/unincorporated discussion arguments, were a commonwealth and territories of the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The attack on American nationals or properties is considered an attack on the US. anywhere it occurs. That does not mean that the places where attacks occur are parts of the U.S. Think of terrorist attacks on American tourists, U.S. bases, ships and embassies. I agree by the way that the discussion of incorporated/unincorporated has no place in the lead. TFD (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there consensus?

So, do we have a consensus that the lede should be changed to follow RightCowLeftCoast's phrasing above? Please confine your discussion to what the lede should say. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No need to change the lead. TFD (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the lede to stay as it is; however, if others agree, then I have no problem with it changing to the second version provided by RightCowLeftCoast above. --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

We cannot in any case add unsourced statements to the article. What is the source? TFD (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Intros typically don't need sourcing, they rely on the article. That at least one territory is part of the country is, I believe, uncontroversial; I say it's Palmyra, VHD would say it's the five inhabited territories. So technically this description could be correct, without explicitly changing the definition of the country nor requiring special sourcing. It's not a *necessary* change to make but I can't disagree with its technical accuracy, and so if several others agree I won't stop it. --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If the lead is not sourced then it must summarize sourced information in the article. Palmyra is just one territory, so "territories" would be wrong. Palmyra is considered incorporated because it was severed from the incorporate territory of Hawaii when it became a state. According to the GAO, the Supreme Court would probably agree that the constitution applies in full to the island.[10] However even if the U.S. considers it incorporated, international law may not. The U.S. had listed Hawaii as a non-self governing territory before Palmyra was severed. In any case this is the wrong way to research. Instead of looking for sources on whether Palmyra is part of the U.S., we should reflect high quality secondary sources that explain the extent ot the U.S. The only such source introduced by TheVirginiaHistorian is an opinion that says contrary to popular belief the U.S. is an empire consisting of a federal republic and overseas colonies. TFD (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Does RightCowLeftCoast's phrasing necessitate any conclusion about Palmyra? If not, either make the change and move on to improving other parts of the article, or don't make the change and let's drop the dispute entirely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is to add "and other territories" to the lead. But we should not do that unless there are sources the the U.S. includes territories. TFD (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

One common meaning of "United States" covered in Am. Jur. and C.J.S. does include territories. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

AGREE to RightCowLeftCoast wording. Any need to restate direct quotes from six linked scholars in law journals, defend myself from misrepresentation, or point out there are no secondary sources Oct 2012-Feb 2013 to support excluding the five major territories with constitutional status “equivalent to states”, per three GAO reports to Congress beginning in 1990? No secondary sources imagined are restated to "exclude territories".

_ _ [aside] I am not sure how to proceed. Does not the international community admit U.S.G. as an independent nation with acceptable constitutional practice in human rights and self-determination, territorial "local autonomy" of the sourced scholars, "equivalent to states" of GAO reports? It is said here that unlike U.K. Parliament granting incorporated territories to Canada and Australia, the U.S. Congress is incompetent to do so for itself. But it has incorporated territory by its own constitutional practice since 1805. Is the article U.S. editor imaginary or historical U.S. 2013? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of these nuances have any bearing on the proposed phrasing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:DISAMBIG: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous." We create separate articles. This article is about the nation. We cannot synthesize different meanings to develop one that is different from any definition in reliable sources. The second definition in Am Ju is "includes all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government wherever located." If we decide that the article should use that definition then we should follow it, but must follow it faithfully. Downes v Bidwell says, "In dealing with foreign sovereignties, the term 'United States' has a broader meaning than when used in the Constitution, and includes all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, wherever located. In its treaties and conventions with foreign nations, this government is a unit. This is so, not because the Territories comprise a part of the government established by the people of the States in their Constitution, but because the Federal Government is the only authorized organ of the Territories, as well as of the States in their foreign relations." We should also check whether this interpretation is still accepted after the English judgment of the "divisible crown" which states that the sovereign authority for each overseas territory of the UK is separate.[11] TFD (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is part of why I have proposed elsewhere that we restructure the top-level sectioning of this article to reflect the existing ambiguity of the phrase, as well as endeavor to standardize the other articles on this topic. That notwithstanding, it is not essential that we use the highest precision either in the lede or in all parts of this top-level article: see WP:SS. Indeed, a top-level disambiguation may make problematic assumptions about information from other references in the article. Consider this phrase from the lede for instance:

The United States is a post-industrial developed country and has the world's largest national economy, with an estimated 2012 GDP of $15.6 trillion – 19% of global GDP at purchasing-power parity, as of 2011.

Do these statistics include the territories and possessions? It isn't blatantly obvious here, and would require going and spot-checking each and every reference. And for this case, the provided reference does not disambiguate the phrase. This is just one example. Finally, looking to WP:D, this guideline (note: not policy) deals primarily with article titles and links to other articles, not to disambiguation within an article (but see WP:CONCEPTDAB, which describes a type of article about a broad concept that is capable of disambiguation, but also capable of description as a broad concept, such as Particle). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed language is without nuances for the introduction, but it comprehends U.S. constitutional practice regarding territories by congressional and judicial usages. --- But wait, the Queen's recent “Divisiblity of the Crown” in territories without direct parliamentary representation makes discussion impossible for territories in a republic with congressional representation. Really? Let the recent foreign royal development yield to the republic’s own 200 year constitutional practice for the U.S. article introduction.

_ _ The Infobox is the illustration for the introduction. If other text illustration is poorly executed relative to reporting sources or scope, wikieditors who share that interest are free to tackle it. But for reference to see how incomplete and inconsistent databases can be used on an Wiki country-article page, see the France article which does not report the distinction between Republic of France (continental, Corsica and outlying territories) and the French Republic (metropolitan France of OECD data, continental France and Corsica only.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If the phrasing is inadequate for a subsection, then let that subsection specify (or point out the lack of clarity in sources) what meaning is in use for that subsection. If I understand your statement about France correctly, it presupposes that its practice should set the standard for this article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to believe that American Samoa and Palau are included in the IMF's figures? TVH, the point is that when the US government signs a treaty on behalf of the US or Palau, it is not the same thing. The US is not bound to treaties it signs on behalf of Palau and Palau is not bound to treaties signed on behalf of the US. Certainly you accept that Palau is not part of the US. TFD (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Query. Your assumption is that the U.S.G. is illegitimate, so it signs treaties that do not bind it? How is a treaty signing related to IMF figures, exactly. connect the dots. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

TVH, you need to avoid personal attacks which are unproductive. Whether or not the U.S. government becomes liable if the government of Puerto Rico fails to meet its obligations under a treaty is dependent on the terms of the treaty. It is the same as if someone with power of attorney signs an agreement on your behalf. The attorney is not illegitimate because they are acting on behalf of another person. None of this is relevant to the IMF, which was brought up by Mendaliv, but are in response to your comments, which is why they were addressed to you. Incidentally none of the overseas territories of the U.S. have voting members of Congress, but that is irrelevant to whether or not they are part of the U.S. Note that Palmyra does not even have a non-voting member. TFD (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Philippines had non-voting representation and were not part of the country; DC has non-voting representation and is. So that's out as a metric. --Golbez (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

From what I can gather from reading the multiple comments posted since I last visited is that most editors here understand that there is more than one definition for the United States depending on the context of the usage. Some context include all the United States and her territories, in other context it is only the 50 states and a federal state. I am sure there are others who would say the definition of the United States shouldn't include the lands that made up Mexican Cession, the Kingdom of Hawaii and the lands claimed by the Republic of Lakotah.

Therefore, from what I can gather there is a plurality of active editors in this discussion who agree with my reworded lead sentence, one who is neutral, and one who opposes the change. Whether the current state makes consensus, YMMV. As Wikipedia is not a democracy, yet not a bureaucracy, those two things will determine your mileage. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this conversation has been going on for months, you need more time to claim there is a consensus, particularly since most of the conversation has opposed the concept that the U.S. includes territories. It would be helpful too if you could tell us which territories are included. TFD (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

More unsourced disruption of sourced contribution. Scholarly and government secondary sources inform that in 2013, U.S. includes five organized territories, N. Marianas, Guam, Am. Samoa, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. GAO reports since 1990 on Insular Affairs distinguish between the five major territories and nine uninhabited possessions administered by Fish and Wildlife, and NASA.

_ _ No source says U.S. is illegitimate to define itself as a republic under its constitutional practice since 1805, guaranteeing fundamental human rights with territorial self-determination, the scholar's "local autonomy" for U.S. territories in 2013. Editors protest territories have not all constitutional provisions as states (straw man). But incorporated territories never have had all, and today they have more guarantees than previous territories now admitted as states.

_ _ The five organized territories have self-government that secondary sources report are constitutionally "equivalent to states" in the American Union, taking the form of a federal constitutional republic of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories of citizens. U.S. territories in 2013 hold larger privileges than territories made states in 1910 and 1960, including terrritorial Member of Congress committee votes and two appointments a year for each military academy: Navy, Army, Air Force and Coast Guard.

_ _ Since 1805, when an incorporated territory accepts the authority of congress and constitution in a referendum of 5,000, congress makes a territorial representative with floor privilege of debate. In made-up-u.s., territories must have the privileges of states including Senators (straw man), but never happened. Congress gave a non-voting delegate to the Philippines of non-citizens on its way to granting independence. That is unconnected to DC with a Member of Congress like previous incorporated territories. Even though DC has Article I courts inferior to the territories Article III federal courts, congress making citizens incorporates it just as much as the U.S. territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)