Talk:United States/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Heading

Just after: "...a prominent political and cultural force, and a leader in scientific research and technological innovation." I would like to discuss adding a sentence about what makes America great. From a neutral perspective, this is important because I believe that it is not simply the richness of resources, that is mentioned on the page, or the abundance of land, or any other factor except the people and the Culture itself, that makes the USA what it is. Further down the article, the section on Culture describes the American creed and American dream, but a short and simple sentence in the heading that also references the Cultural section, the same as the other references do, would add to a neutral view of the country. Would someone be willing to help me to construct such an proposed addition please? Zarpboer (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting that my edit "requires copy-editing and better placement (not after geology) - requires discussion on talk" - Dhtwiki = It was: The people of the United States are known for their ideal "that all things are possible books", their emphasis on freedom, initiative and individuality and for their pursuit of the American Dream. - My citation was: The American spirit; a basis for world democracy - google.co.za/books?id=gHwAAAAAYAAJ - please suggest a more appropriate position? Is improvement to the sentence by replacing "their emphasis on freedom, initiative and individuality and for their pursuit" with "their emphasis on freedom, initiative and individuality as well as for their pursuit" be adequate? Zarpboer (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant "geography" (and climate), not "geology" with regard to placement. It would go before, if it were agreed to. But the fact that you've had no response to your initial comment tells me, and it was my reaction, that "what makes America great" is too nebulous a topic to be addressed easily, if at all. At least it needs to be developed in the article body before it's reflected in the lead (your initial suggestion seemed to be to place it in the Culture section). However, if you're going to address the point, I think you need to have references more recent than the one you quoted (also, remember that punctuation goes before a reference, which I think was my major complaint regarding your edit needing copy-editing). Dhtwiki (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

For a more recent take, we could use:

Americans have built a nation over the course of their history in a continuing contest over the meanings of freedom, politically, economically, and over which residents are entitled to its expression in their participation, civil liberties, moral ideals, and working lives.

(ref. Foner, Eric. The Story of American Freedom (1998) ISBN 0-393-04665-6, p. xvi-xix.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a very good reference. (and a great sentence) I am going to work through it properly, thank you so much, it covers the shaping of freedom very well! - My comment was more related to the people of the USA, I came to the page originally to look for a reference to American culture, can do spirit and what the core differentiators are. I had to read through a lot, to get to the culture section, (The USA page is gigantic) then that linked to the American dream and even then, nothing much about that which is the generally accepted notions of freedom, individuality and initiative - in an academic paper I once read "can do spirit"? Adding an additional section would make the page even larger than it is? It is obviously the people of America that makes the country great?, what and who the people of America are at their core, that is the deficit on this very well developed page? Maybe this is all obvious to an American? but it is not obvious to the non American and it is difficult information to find Zarpboer (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

How does Foner's sentence distinguish the United States from other countries, much less pinpoint what makes the U.S. great? How we came down on the issue of who is entitled to participate has varied widely throughout our history. 1919, the year of your reference that talked of a "can do" spirit, was the year of most lynchings of blacks, if I recall correctly. For some a "can do" spirit caused them a lot of trouble. And that was an era in which we were growing and becoming greater. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

But that is exactly the point made above already... the American people developed, and is constantly developing an understanding of freedom. It is the ability of the people to be honest with themselves, to reflect, to freely speak out, to criticize themselves. This from the 17th century, through 1919 and to this present day. Sofar as I can establish, that is the universal truth about the American people and what makes them great. Regarding the "can do" spirit, it is in this spirit that many good and bad things were done? From a neutral point of view, it is not really relevant whether the "can do" spirit has done evil things or good things, just simply that it was, and is the essence of the American people? Zarpboer (talk)

• Comment I'd be highly reluctant to insert any single individual's opinion of the American people (or any other people) into an article about a country. It would seem doomed to fail WP:POV. I'm especially reluctant when the source is around 100 years old but even a new book would fail WP:POV.Jeppiz (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Response to comment: Is your proposition that it is a single individuals opinion that the culture and essence of what is a country, is not its people? It is preposterous to even consider that a country could exist without a people! Anyway, to take this back to the original issue: On this USA page, if it is generally accepted that a country cannot even exist without people, then in the heading weight should be given to those people. Personally I do not know what makes the American people who they are. What the USA page does not reflect, is why is the USA great? Is it the USA laws?, The amount of natural resources in the USA? - Patently, not. It is the American people themselves. So then, what is it about these people? What is it that differentiates an American from myself (an African)? What I do know, is that they are a great and giving people, who have and are constantly developing and even re-inventing themselves. They have done many great things and continue doing many great things. (I can give a simple recent example to reflect the giving spirit of this great nation: sending 3000 troops to help with the West African Ebola virus.) American people are awesome. And simply the culture of who these people are needs more weight in the heading of the USA, that is not a WP:FRINGE or single individuals opinion. It simply is a neutral, balanced and encyclopedic view of the page itself. Zarpboer (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So we now have a statement supporting the idea of a summary sentence on the American culture. And another disagreeing with the general idea in the abstract because characterizing "what makes America great" will be POV. I agree with the general idea. The source may be from a historian with a sociological emphasis, who may be describing the American culture without determining that is "what makes it great", but rather iterates specific characteristics contributing to its continuation as a recognizable world culture. So the search is on for the reliable source with a pithy characterization to supply proposed language for a copy edit. Otherwise the suggestion dies at the conceptual stage as unpractical. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Zarpboer, as usual (I'm sorry to say) you don't get the point and then you rant against your own misunderstanding. Nobody is denying that there are different cultures and that countries consist of their individuals. But to from there to a phrase claiming to define a nation is quite a leap. And how to decide on whom to rely? Mitt Romney has one view of what characterizes the US. Usama bin Laden, to take an extreme example, also had a view on that, though very different from Romney's. If you ask sociologists from the UK, Mexico, Nigeria, Iran, Russia, Australia and China about what defines Americans, you're likely to get very different answers. So the question is quite simple. If we should include the view of one, or a few, individuals, how do we decide whose view of the US to present?Jeppiz (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeppiz No, sorry, You are not understanding what I am saying... I never said 'culture' - You did. I said: "a Country consists of people" Regarding your remark about the views of what characterizes the USA, the answer is simple: Use that which is the generally accepted view(s) of what defines the American people. Even between Usama bin Laden and Mitt Romney the views do intersect, or at the very least not conflict, around a few simple words, for example: Freedom. Then, the idea is not to define the culture of the American people, culturally the American people are non exclusive and Americans consist of almost all the different modern cultures on the planet. There is no universal truth or universal fact, which is why Foner's sentence: Americans have built a nation over the course of their history in a continuing contest over the meanings of freedom, politically, economically, and over which residents are entitled to its expression in their participation, civil liberties, moral ideals, and working lives. Read it again - And more specifically as it pertains to the economic part of that sentence, it excludes ALL nations. (Extreme example, Zimbabwe progressive example, Britain) the defining differences here are: continuing contest, the British nation is not so defined, and on the other side of ridiculous, neither are the Zimbabweans or anyone else. In fact, ask not how Foners sentence makes the USA great, rather ask how it does not? Which other nation on the planet can make the same claims of constantly, consistently over hundreds of years, doing the same thing now as they did a hundred years or two hundred years, ago? The American people are discussing freedom right now, today, somewhere in the USA it is a trending topic, the same as they have consistently been doing. Nobody else does this. Not the Dutch, Not the Germans, nobody. For other nations it is more of a cyclic thing, not a continuing contest, over centuries. And when I say nations, I do mean the people (all the cultures that combine into a cohesive unit which forms a singular country) - Personally: If I am not understanding something then maybe if someone could explain it differently to me, I would sincerely appreciate it, maybe I am not as intelligent as you are and it would be really cool to come to terms with this concept properly Zarpboer (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Politicians are not reliable sources published in academic journals with peer review. Everything is not relative. The point of going to academics is that they will have analytical descriptions which can be acknowledged in many different places, as their characterizations are backed up by evidence. The variable will be whether those same traits are admired, respected, tolerated or reviled.

The religious tolerance in the United States which allows Sunnis and Shia to worship with their families in a Mosque of their choosing and make it home with all alive is despised in the Islamic State, where one is executed on the roadside for answering the diagnostic question wrongly: How many kneelings at morning prayer? The Sunni answers correctly for that culture, the Shia is summarily executed. There is nothing the U.S. can do to satisfy the ISIL objection as long as Shia are allowed to worship in peace in the U.S., and the American culture will not admit religious intolerance, and there is evidence which peer-reviewed academics use to support that view.

But religious toleration as a trait in the American culture cannot be included in this article without a reliable source and proposed language for a copy edit which is agreed to in consensus. The issue is encompassed in the Foner quote addressing "civil liberties". It describes a culture of contests over core values, which is to say each iteration in the quote refers to traits in the culture. The POV "what makes America great" is exactly what is to be avoided in favor of what is descriptive. Although adherents of American exceptionalism are everywhere, it is not necessary to demonstrate that no other culture is religiously tolerant to describe the U.S. as such, only that it is descriptively manifest among the Americans as a culture in order to note it in one way or another. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool!, the way you explain things are very very cool, thank you so much for taking the time TheVirginiaHistorian I also now understand the inclusive nature of the descriptive differences in the various iterations of the sentence. And, obviously as per your explanation, I similarly accept that additional references to the American dream, can do spirit, etc. will require the same descriptive source as Foner. So, the Foner sentence is fine, with consensual acceptance, and the hunt is then on for contextual and non WP:SYN generally academically accepted citations which includes the additional concepts. Okay, research it is then Zarpboer (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Can I just remind everybody about WP:FORUM? ThanksJeppiz (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of sources such as the social historian who was the Librarian of Congress for a number of years, Daniel Boorstin, mining his books, articles and speeches. Foner was president of the American Historical Association. The idea is to find a reliable source of nationally recognized stature in an academic field. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

GDP poverty etc in lead

Per WP:LEAD, the section is suppose to define the scope of the article, and summarize its content. Although this is really a summary article of a multitude of more specific articles, in reading the article, and the lead it appears to give significant weight regarding the household income, wealth distribution and poverty rate. This is not reflected in the body of the article. Therefore, either the economy section needs expansion, or these statistics need to be moved into the body of the article in say the demographics section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Simply taking out some of the most detailed supportive evidence would give us a last intro paragraph to read:

The United States is a developed country and has the world's largest national economy.[5][26] The economy is fueled by an abundance of natural resources and high worker productivity.[27] While the U.S. economy is considered post-industrial, it continues to be one of the world's largest manufacturers.[28] The country accounts for 37% of global military spending,[35]being the world's foremost economic and military power, a prominent political and cultural force, and a leader in scientific research and technological innovation.[36]

That alone would be a major improvement in my opinion. The footnotes would automatically renumber. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That does look better.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

First attempt made on main page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2014

203.190.1.22 (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please resubmit your request, providing any necessary sources. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 11:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment in Russian

Россия – священная наша держава, Россия – любимая наша страна. Могучая воля, великая слава – Твоё достоянье на все времена!

Chorus: Славься, Отечество наше свободное, Братских народов союз вековой, Предками данная мудрость народная! Славься, страна! Мы гордимся тобой! От южных морей до полярного края Раскинулись наши леса и поля. Одна ты на свете! Одна ты такая – Хранимая Богом родная земля!

Chorus Широкий простор для мечты и для жизни Грядущие нам открывают года. Нам силу даёт наша верность Отчизне. Так было, так есть и так будет всегда!

Chorus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.47.231.79 (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This post does not appear to be a contribution on the writing of the article. Seems the text of a song. Any translation? I remember having conversations with native Spanish speakers with little command of speaking English where they would speak slowly in Spanish, and I would speak slowly in English, and we understood one another. But here, should it be treated any differently than a random posting which is not relevant? I have no command of Russian at all. Any translation? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy Google Translate:

Russia - our sacred state, Russia - our beloved country. A mighty will, great glory - Your heritage for all time!

Chorus: Be glorious, our free Fatherland union of brotherly peoples, Ancestor given wisdom of the people! Glorious, country! We are proud of you! From the southern seas to the polar lands Spread our forests and fields. One you are in the world! You are one such God - guarded native land!

Chorus: Wide spaces for dreams and for life The coming year we are opening. Gives us strength, our loyalty to the Fatherland. So it was, is and always will be!

Unless someone is wanting to open a discussion regarding rightful ownership of Alaska, this doesn't have much to do with the U.S. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Bering Strait and Ethnicity

There is no [ethnic chart] that I can see, and it is a [THEORY] that [Native Americans] [migrated] across the [Bering strait], so please make an [Ethnic Chart], and make "[The Native Americans] crossed the [Bering Strait Land Bridge]" Into "It has been theorized that The [Native Americans] crossed the [Bering Strait Land Bridge]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDboyAwesome (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean or want with the term "ethnic chart," but the Bering crossing is mentioned in the first paragraph of the history section. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

[Why] are you [typing] [like this]? --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Improved map?

This version of the first map was just reverted as being not an improvement. I think the newer, reverted map shows Hawaii and some Caribbean islands better, while not having any obvious faults. It also delineates Central and South American political boundaries. I ask for reconsideration. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, no adequate reason was given for reversion. --Golbez (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The second revert was noting the editor's reversion of intervening edits. The first was because the transformation of the colors makes it difficult to see most of the globe (no point in "delineates" if there's no context). But this is Wikipedia - have it your way. TEDickey (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the removal of the intervening edits was bad (I missed that) and they shouldn't be edit warring for a map, let alone changing numbers without an edit summary... so please don't react poorly to this discussion, it's not necessarily about your reverts but rather the map. In a vacuum, it looked like the map was being reverted on its own merits, and I apologize for not looking deeper into it. --Golbez (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I had only seen the first reversion of the map, which involved only the map, when I posted. I myself had to revert the person who first added the new map, that person having a tendency to combine helpful and unhelpful edits. It was after that reversion, and while I was salvaging what was helpful, that I went ahead and added the new map, believing I had consensus here to do so. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Corporate tax rate

This article has a lengthy discussion of the incidence of the corporate income tax, but only a brief mention of corporate income tax rates, which I believe to be misleading. I propose that [1] from [2] be included to illustrate the US effective corporate tax rate, supported by the statistics in [3]. EllenCT (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As a counter argument, perhaps we could pare down the content on the subject in this article (as it is becoming bloated in general) and instead include any such information in more specific sub-articles, such as Taxation in the United States or something similar. The content certainly belongs at Wikipedia. The question (as always) is whether an omnibus, overview article such as this is the best place for it. --Jayron32 23:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, articles should serve to counter common misconceptions. The average reader is unlikely to have accurate information about US corporate tax rates or incidence given the extent of misleading financially conflicted sources prevalent in even high quality news source discourse. EllenCT (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Wikipedia should counter common misconceptions is a non-sequitur as to whether or not the material unnecessarily bloats an overview article. Misconceptions can be countered at Taxation in the United States as well as anywhere. This article is too big, and the emphasis on certain topics provides an imbalance that does not befit an overview article like this. While Wikipedia can, should, and does contain a wealth of information about the United States, it is impossible to put it all in this one article. The specific topic of taxation policy is sufficiently esoteric and arcane as to be unsuitable for a general overview article, which should focus on basic history, geography, structure, etc. instead. I am certainly not arguing against the inclusion of the information at Wikipedia, just that this one article needn't include it. --Jayron32 13:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If misconceptions are common, then why shouldn't they be addressed in an overview? The multiple sentences we have on incidence are arcane enough, and we don't need more than a single additional sentence to properly address the effective corporate tax rates and the misinformation surrounding them. I will find a better source to address TFD's comments below. EllenCT (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If by common you mean "common among people who spend time considering the taxation system within the United States" you may have something. That's why it belongs in the article on taxation in the United States. If by common you mean "among people", then no, it is not a common misconception because most people don't think about the taxation system of the United States at all, and in an overview level article like this, such discourses are entirely out-of-place. People who come to this article aren't looking for this specific information, really. What they are looking for is a general overview. If they wanted to know about the intricacies of U.S. tax law, they'd go to articles about that. --Jayron32 18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your source for the assertion that "most people don't think about the taxation system of the United States at all"? EllenCT (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? There's 7 billion people on planet earth. About 95% of all people on earth don't live in the United States, and you can't credibly claim that I need to prove to you that those 6,700,000,000 or so people don't really devote much thought to U.S. tax policy? Look, you discredit your own stance with your own ridiculousness here. No one has said that Wikipedia shouldn't include the information. For stylistic and editorial reasons, it just doesn't belong in this article. --Jayron32 23:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What proportion of people who have thought about the economic facts, including corporate tax incidence, that are covered in this article do you believe have not thought about the taxation system of the United States? I believe it to be 0%, for reasons that I would have thought were obvious. The effective corporate tax rate is a much less esoteric topic than the corporate tax incidence. EllenCT (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You have not mentioned what edits you plan to make. Certainly in the U.S. as in other countries, corporations are able to amortize fixed assets faster for tax purposes than for corporate accounting. In order to compare effective rates with other countries, you need to show that the sample used is representative of corporations as a whole in the U.S., whether accounting principles for determining income are similar, and the extent of deferred taxation in the countries used as a comparison. That requires a source. My understanding is that effective corporate tax rates are higher in the U.S., primarily because it has not replaced them with value added (or goods and service or "fair") tax, with the result that the country puts itself at a competitive disadvantage. See if you can find anything that addresses the issue and it might merit a brief mention. TFD (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sadly this reflects very common misconceptions. I will propose a specific edit with a single sentence to help address the concern, the mistakes, and the missing information, but not right now. EllenCT (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, you need to find relevant reliable secondary sources. Because of the complexity of the subject, it is always possible to find facts that support one side or another, which can then be used by partisan sources. For example, the U.S. taxes overseas earnings while other countries do not, but the U.S. provides tax breaks for overseas earnings that are not brought back to the U.S. And the U.S. provided accelerated depreciation to encourage investment to get out of the Great Depression, while countries that were not as hard hit did not. There are also U.S. corporations that do not pay tax on profits transferred to shareholders that are then taxed as personal income. We could spend pages of discussion determined how to weight all these issues, but the best approach is to use reliable sources to do the analysis for us. TFD (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In economics the most reliable secondary peer reviewed academic journal articles often end up being published in law reviews, but not always. I will find the best. EllenCT (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, IMHO this should be in the Taxation in the United States article, and not this article. Also to correct misconceptions is not what Wikipedia is about. We can say that about a lot of things, but that doesn't mean those opinions are given weight, if anything the "common" is given more weight as often the "common" has more reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Languages

Here are some links regarding its status:

• Language of Inequality (Woflson & Manes, 1985)
• The Asian American Educational Experience: A Sourcebook for Teachers and Students (Nakanishi & Yamano, 2014
• The Mixed Language Debate: Theoretical and Empirical Advances (Matras & Bakker, 20013)

Hope this helps. If any content was removed perhaps it should be restored.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a counterargument, sometimes things are removed for valid reasons other than the lack of sources. I have no idea if this is the case here, or not, but the existence of sources for some piece of information is necessary but not sufficient for its inclusion. --Jayron32 18:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There was talk of removing the "Recognised regional languages" list per WP:BURDEN recently, and I wasn't sure if that was done or not, so I wanted to provide some resources to rebut that argument.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

American Samoa and Guam are not in the U.S. It would make the article needlessly long to mention all the different different languages used in U.S. possessions. Just saying that various native languages are recognized in some overseas possessions. TFD (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

How accurate is "democracy"?

When the US de jure democracy has features of a de facto oligarchy, as e.g. [4] and [5] show, how accurate is it to say without qualification that the US is a democracy in Wikipedia's voice? EllenCT (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. See also WP:IDHT. -- Calidum 05:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The article does not say that the U.S. is a democracy. TFD (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The article says the U.S. is a "representative democracy". But proclaiming the U.S. an oligarchy should, to be consistent with oligarchic revolutions of the past, imply changes to the constitution, not just economic shifts and perceived influence. The Wikipedia article Oligarchy seems confused and biased. It spends more time talking about measures that Athens took to counteract their late-5th century B.C. oligarchic revolution—selecting magistrates by lot, etc.—than in discussing the elements of the oligarchic revolution itself—repealing the constitution of Solon, reconstituting the popular assembly, etc. It also spends too much time discussing the U.S., and it seems unlikely that we occupy such a prime place in the oligarchical universe. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

To some extent all democracies will have oligarchic properties as it requires good debating skills, a certain level of intelligence (at least allowing the articulate words), and an existing network to qualify for representation. Nevertheless outsides that manage to access these resources do have a chance in a democracy - Barrack Obama is an example. Arnoutf (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The term "representative democracy" merely means that a substantial number of nationals residing in the metropolitan state have the privilege of voting. Whether or not that is a true democracy is an issue better addressed in those articles. TFD (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, inclusion of oligarchy language into this article. Insufficient weight, see WP:FRINGE, given the plethora of other reliable sources that use the term United States with democracy. For instance look at books 188k of Oligarchy hits, with 9.43 million of Democracy hits.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. A snapshot of inequalities does not meet the definition of a ruling oligarchy. The same economic elites and interest groups do not sustain influence over substantial regions over substantial periods of time, never mind nationally and perpetually. The states change in relative power each decennial census based on population, regardless of wealth, family ties, or other usual oligarchical forms of control. The diversity in the bases of wealth nationally in the U.S. change substantially over time, the number of millionaires multiplies, and the actors are not limited in any way to define a ruling oligopoly of the few restricting access to wealth by alternative means. Of course great concentrations of wealth are dangerous to the republic, and so they ought to be monitored, reported, widely discussed, and regulated for the common good as they are in any democracy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, there are many better things to fight for. This is a fringe idea that you know had no chance, why would you waste time and respect on this? --Golbez (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

map

should we use map a or map b? Dannis243 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

map a

map b

Survey

• Looks like we are using map b now? What is the reason for changing to map a? It'd seem like a good idea on your part to state some sort of need or reason rather than a seemingly random question... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

map a looks alot better it is more aesthetic and many wikipedia country articles use that type of svg maps, russia and canada for example Dannis243 (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you are ignoring the discussion we had above, which came to something of a consensus that map B is better. Secondly, what consensus has been expressed here that supports your already having reverted, again!, to map A. I see a question, not support. The two maps are almost identical, except that map B manages to show more detail, especially in that the Aleutians aren't truncated and the Hawaiian archipelago is shown more fully, as is Puerto Rico (the Bahamas and the Leeward islands Lesser Antilles having gone almost completely missing in map A). Dhtwiki (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Map B. with more complete island representation, clearer national boundaries in Latin America. Only longitude and latitude is clearer in A. Map B is better. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

B, absolutely. The islands are visible. --Golbez (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014

Motto: 

"In God We Trust" (official)[1][2][3]

Other traditional mottos [hide] "E pluribus unum" (Latin) (de facto) "Out of many, one" ___________________________________________________________________________________ "Annuit cœptis" (Latin) "She/he/it approves (has approved) of the undertakings"

"Novus ordo seclorum" (Latin) "New order of the ages"

I am familiar with the first two mottos, but I have never seen or heard of these last two. Where is the reference for each? I am very curious and hope to have a quick response since it's just about a reference to address these. I'm familiar with Latin and read quite a bit. This is really surprising to me and I am very curious…I don't think these are accurate.

74.222.198.71 (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Both Annuit cœptis and Novus ordo seclorum are blue links - if you click on them they take you to the relevant articles. - Arjayay (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Common Meaning of "United States"

There should be information on the relationship between the U.S. mainland and the U.S. territories and possessions. This could be provided as a footnote to the sentence "The country also has five populated and nine unpopulated territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean," complete with citing sources.

Here is also proposed text: The term “United States” does not generally encompass the Territories, Possessions and Protectorates of the United States; such as the Territories of American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the North Mariana Islands, the Protectorates and/or Trust Territories of Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Unincorporated Territories and/or Possessions of Bajo Nuevo Bank, Baker Island, Howland Island, Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Nevassa Island, Midway Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Serranilla Bank and Wake Island or leased areas under U.S. jurisdiction such as Guantanamo Bay, U.S. Embassies, and military bases.

This is important because it should be clear that those born/living in the territories and possessions are not entitled to all of the same rights that come with being a U.S. citizen on the mainland. Some key examples are health care (Affordable Care Act does not apply to territories); voting (those in territories cannot vote in federal elections or run for U.S. Presidency); taxes (not paid to federal U.S. government, because those in the territories do not live in the U.S.); constitutional rights (Constitution does not fully apply to territories, only the "United States").

Key citations would include statutes that specifically enumerate the territories as separate from the United States: a. 42 USCS § 1983 “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia…” b. 42 USCS § 9601 “(27)The terms "United States" and "State" include the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and any other territory or possession over which the United States has jurisdiction.” c. 7 USCS § 2156 “"(g) Definitions. In this section-- (3) the term State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States;” d. Contrast with 42 USC 1973, Voting Rights Act because Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are not States. (See, generally, Igartúa v. United States, 626 F.3d 592 (CA1 2010) why Territories are not considered States by Courts or Congress),

As well as the Insular Cases (see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Insular_Cases) and Airline Ticket Comm'n Antitrust Litig. Travel Network v. United Air Lines, 307 F.3d 679 (8th Cir. 2002). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.96.149 (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a debate about this last year, and it is my view that this has largely been resolved, with the present text holding consensus. Therefore, the wording above might be unnecessary, and might be better in other related articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP has hit upon the revelation that U.S. territories are not states, which is of itself unremarkable in the history of the United States, and he presents it as original research, without sourcing scholars.

U.S. territories are and have been recognized internationally as a part of the United States. They are today explicitly included by law in citizenship, federal courts, defense, and environmental protection. Their citizens have right of travel in the U.S., they are have three-branch self-governing territories which send elected Delegate representatives to Congress in federal elections.

Congress has granted today’s territorial citizens more rights and privileges than the territories of Alaska and Hawaii, which faced racial discrimination before their statehood. See Territories of the United States. -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex civil marriages

IMHO, the emphasis of of the number of states that recognize same-sex marriages, might be bordering POV pushing, or be given undue weight. Civil recognition of homosexual civil marriages is at least, if not less so, important than Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, yet I don't see any mention of that history in the article. And since one is excluded, why include the other in the first place?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right to draw parallel in the civil rights to civil unions across racial and sexual practice. Efforts to stabilize society in state-sponsored civil unions, or marriages as a religious sacrament in the faith of your choice, is an important element of regulating public health and morals, as well as protecting the rights of partners. See common-law marriage. See also the Pope’s recent take on pastoral care of same-sex marriage partners and the remarried divorced in the Roman Catholic Church.

My objection to the repeated updates is based on making the article subject to recentism or presentism, sort of a current events blog, like some of our economic indicators which do not report a secular cycle documented in scholarly journals. It can be said that federal courts are determining civil unions cannot be constrained by a majority's definition of their religious interpretation of marriage. And the number of states where that interpretation of the Constitution and individual rights is applicable, "is increasing". That should be adequate for a few months' duration in this summary article. For those interested in weekly updates, there should be a link in this article to Same-sex marriage in their United States subsection. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Another possibility is just leave see also links at the top of the section, to Same-sex marriage in the United States and Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, and remove the presently unverified content per WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Political divisions citation provided

The article statement was tagged as "citation needed", "The states do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the union.” The in line link "do not have the right" is to Texas v. White.

One of many possible sources is now provided, Zuczek, Richard. “Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era” Texas v. White (1869), ISBN 0-313-33073-5 p. 649. The passage relates that the Texas v. White case ruling by the Supreme Court decided one of the"central constitutional questions" of the Civil War. The Union is perpetual and indestructible, as a matter of constitutional law until amended. In declaring that no state could leave the Union, it was "explicitly repudiating the position of the Confederate states that the United States was a voluntary compact between sovereign states”. -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam conflict

Why is the Second Indochina War in the lead? While it impact on recent affairs is notable, given the long history of the subject, it is relatively recent, and doesn't have as significant impact as say the Mexican-American War, that is wholly excluded from the lead.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with RightCowLeftCoast. That whole Korea/Vietnam sentence should be removed from the lede.VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Vietnam War had a big impact on the country, as described in the nice Encyclopedia Britannica quote which was removed.... A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the Vietnam War, which left the US "military demoralized and its civilian electorate deeply divided, [and it] began a process of coming to terms with defeat in its longest and most controversial war."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, what "metric" are you using to measure "impact"? The Mex-Am war lasted a year and a half, from the spring of 1846 to the fall of 1847. Exact dates about the Vietnam War are hard to agree on, but roughly 1955-1975.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Mexican-American War lead to the Mexican Cession, making up the large part of multiple states. The Second Indochina War had a social impact, but no more than say the current social impact due to the War on Terror, which is not in the lead and is a longer conflict (1,2, 3). The largest impact can be argued from the U.S. involvement in the Second Indochina War is the influx of Vietnamese Americans, Montagnard, Hmong Americans after the fall of the Republic of Vietnam/South Vietnam. The Second Indochina War did not drastically change the U.S.'s power internationally, the way that World War II did. It lead to no territorial change, at least in World War II it lead to the U.S. granting independence to the Commonwealth of the Philippines, and to the acquisition (temporarily) of the U.N. Pacific Trust Territories.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The first article you sent calls the War on Terror the US's longest war, but given that the War on Terror has lasted 13 years, the Vietnam War is longer, at 20 years long. As my Ency Brit quote shows, the Vietnam war had a major impact on the US public, and it was notable for the US being defeated by the Communists.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Different reliable sources date the Second Indochina War differently. Please keep the discussion to a single section, as splitting the discussion is unnecessary.

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam with their VietCong insurgency (defeated in the field) did not defeat the United States tactically on the ground. Both parties agreed to a peace in Paris, which lead to the U.S. and SEATO force withdrawal leaving only the Republic of Vietnam and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. It was only after two years afterwards when the SRV broke the Peace Accords and invaded RoV, and the U.S. stood idle.

Furthermore, the outcome of the Second Indochina War had zero impact on the U.S. remaining a superpower.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Socialist R o V and VietCong not defeating the US, you might want to take up this issue on the Vietnam War article, which states that there was a North Vietnamese victory (in the InfoBox).OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added a tag to the Vietnam War infobox statement that it was a North Vietnamese victory.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Many modern conflict articles, given that different reliable sources give different outcomes, normally don't have such bold statements.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the article has the following sentence about the Vietnam War: "A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the Vietnam War." I think it would be helpful for readers to add the dates of the war: "(1955-1975)"OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see other conflicts with dates listed after them, and I don't see a need to. As different reliable sources date the conflict differently, I believe to do so here would be inappropriate and POV pushing.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It makes a big difference to the reader's understanding of the war to know how long it was. If the USA article is only going to devote one sentence to the Vietnam War, it is desirable to communicate some key points about the war (I know the current sentence calls it a proxy war). Some key points could include the duration of the war and the number of US deaths. The debate about the start date can be dealt with using an annotation. I don't think such basic information is inappropriate or POV pushing.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is a summary article, if a reader wants to know the length of the conflict, since we provide a wikilink, they can go to that article, and see the different lengths as cited to different reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. I will give two examples from the lead, where you expect the most substantial use of summary style, that involve using a Wikilinked word, and then explaining it in the text.

• "Driven by the doctrine of manifest destiny, the United States embarked on a vigorous expansion across North America throughout the 19th century." Following your "rely on the wikilink" proposal, the lead would say: "The US was driven by the doctrine of manifest destiny."
• "The state of Alaska is the northwestern part of North America and the state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific." Following your "rely on the wikilink proposal", the lead here would say: Two states that are not part of the contiguous 48 states are Alaska and Hawaii." In both cases, the lead authors chose not to rely on the Wikilinks, but instead to have text in the page briefly explain what "manifest destiny" meant, in the first case, and roughly where Alaska and Hawaii are located. Following this logic, I think that having the sentence "A proxy war was expanded in Southeast Asia with the Vietnam War." could be expanded upon. One proposal would be be to give a range of length dates (e.g., "a conflict that lasted from 18 to 19 years, depending on the source." (with a two citations or an annotation.)OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not opposed, but not supportive, of the change of language being proposed by OnBeyondZebrax to the lead. I do wholly oppose the inclusion of language regarding proxy wars, especially that of the Second Indochina War in the lead section.

OK, I see the discussion is about the Cold War and civil rights era section. I see that the dates of the Korean War are given. Therefore, I am changing my opinion on the dates of the Second Indochina War. That being said, given that there is a debate about the length of the war, as different reliable sources give different dates, I think the best thing to do is, if anything, create a footnote after "...with the Vietnam War." that gives the different lengths of time associated with it. Some see it being 1959, others 1954, others 1962. Therefore to include a hard specific beginning date would push a POV. Same goes with a hard end date, given that major U.S. involvement stopped at 1973, yet most recognize the end of the Second Indochina War as when SRV invaded and toppled RoV in 1975.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As I had suggested above, I have moved the newly added content by OnBeyondZebrax, as a footnote. I will go ahead and format the references now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

REPLACE: The California Gold Rush of 1848–49 spurred western migration and the creation of additional western states.

REASON: it is the 49'ners not the 48'ters; a rush cannot start until people leave their place of origin rather than when gold was found and the rush was not instantaneous.

WITH: The California Gold Rush of 49 spurred from within the United States western migration and the creation of additional western states.66.74.176.59 (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@66.74.176.59: Note: In that sentence the specific time period is mentioned, not the exact year gold rush started. It basically means that the incident took place around 1948-1949. Why do you think that the exact year should be mentioned?--Chamith (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Remark: The gold rush in California started in 1848 and more *eastern* migration (from the California coast to the mountains) than westward happened in that year. It was in 1849 that the migrations from the rest of the U.S., mostly, began in earnest. But it's too fine a point to separate the two in this article, and I think the sentence should remain as is. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dhtwiki has correctly stated the situation. Concur with Dhtwiki in full on this. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

percentages

in the summary it says that the USA has 37 percent of the worlds military budget whereas in the military section it say 41 percent, someone should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.185.162 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Good article

What does this page lack that prevents it from being a good article? Most of the complaints seem to focus on the lack of citations, which seems to have been mostly resolved. Mr.Magik-Pants (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Stability, and potentially a run through of copy editing, but mostly the first part. There is significant contentious editing that occurs at this article, and stability is one of the bullet points of WP:GA?.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Any proposal for Good Article review before we resolve the infobox issue is out of line. (Occasionally someone proposes to resolve a content issue by taking an article to GA peer review. That isn't intended to resolve a content dispute.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Great Migration (African American) undue?

Yesterday, I added a sentence on the Great Migration [6] (with citation) which was reverted saying it needed to be discussed, apparently concerning an issue of whether it was "undue". Before the Great Migration 90 percent of African Americans lived in the South and were mostly a rural people, afterwards African Americans were mostly an urban people and just somewhat more than 50% lived in the south. Urban America changed and American culture changed (See eg New Negro Movement). There is certainly much to read on it, but here are two general sources [7] [8].

So, yes it is due, and want to add it back. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, the Great Migration needs to be included, it changed the social and political landscape of the United States and the actual practice of geographic mobility across the continent for each individual at will is one of the fundamental characteristics of true American citizenship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, why talk about the migration of one group and not that of others in the history section? Why not the growth of the Hispanic/Latino population? The baring of Asian Americans? These things are touched upon in the Demographic section. The only other ethnicity's migration to be specifically singled out are Native Americans in the history section. While the Great Migration is notable, I don't think it's necessary to include it in this article. Otherwise we should integrate the history of Hispanic/Latino American history, Asian American, and other minorities. And if this is done how much weight should be given to each?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. We already do talk about immigration of other people in the 19th century and the migration of other people during the Great Depression, in the history section. Moreover, if you look at the Great Migration article you will see this sourced quote, "[The Great Migration] was one of the largest and most rapid mass internal movements in history -- perhaps the greatest not caused by the immediate threat of execution or starvation. In sheer numbers it outranks the migration of any other ethnic group -- Italians or Irish or Jews or Poles -- to [the U.S.]. For blacks, the migration meant leaving what had always been their economic and social base in America, and finding a new one." Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

However, the article does not specifically single out migration of a single group of individuals, race, as the article Great Migration does, other than the forced movement of Native Americans in the early 19th century, as linked in the Trail of Tears. While the Great Migration is significant in the history of African Americans, just as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act is significant in the history of Asian Americans, that doesn't mean it should be included in the history of the United States, in what is a summary section of the history of the entire United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In the story of national integration of a formerly enslaved people by geographic and social mobility, in the South, the lifting of the racial terrorism restricting movement to within county lines, is a notable development which is groundbreaking and transformational for the entire nation; subsequent migrations of non-Europeans benefitted from the pronouncedly more tolerant racial climate in the United States engendered by the successes of the Great Migration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

African-Americans are the largest group, so it's not only about them -- the impact of the Great Migration on the entirety of American culture and social and political history was/is immense. And again, we do already talk about another's migration during the Great Depression, so you are incorrect about that too. Your argument that Asian exclusion is not due, regardless of whether you are correct about that or not, is not an argument against the Great Migration being due. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Economic migration, during the Great Depression, does not single out a single race, as the Great Migration does, a mention of it, as occurring as part of that migration, is one thing. But an entire sentence onto itself is not IMHO. I stand by my statement, singling out the voluntary trend of movement of one race, IMHO is undue. The Trail of Tears was forced migration, as was slavery; the Great Migration was not. Inclusion of that while excluding such things as more recent immigration of Latino/Hispanic populations, and the baring of Asians creates an unnecessary preference.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The Great Migration was economic too, so that's an implausible differentation to make. One sentence is only one sentence, and is all that is being added. Your discussion of other groups is irrelevant, especially as you apparently don't think they are due, and have no proposal or citation to add on them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion of other groups are entirely relevant. They are also significant minority populations, and Hispanic and Latino Americans outnumber African-Americans. So why include the Great Migration, while excluding other historical significant movements of other races? IMHO, best leave them all out. Otherwise it grows the size of the section, which is as others have said of this entire article, suppose to be a summary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If the Trail of Tears was slavery in a sense, the Great Migration was an end of slavery de facto, so likewise significant, and for greater numbers.

Hispanic and Latino category of the U.S. census commingles Mexicans, Central Americans, South Americans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans…and the count of their descendants present today cannot be reasonably be included in their initial streams of migration over the course of a century for comparison to the numbers of the Great Migration over the course of a decade. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If you had a sentence/citation on any other historically significant migration with that has been studied and encapsulated by historians as the Great Migration has, for its historical/economic/social/political/cultural significance and effects on the entire United States, you would have proposed it for inclusion but you have not done so. We, however, follow historians in the history section - they have identified and documented this singular movement (the Great Migration) and its importance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:AVOIDYOU

A great deal of history when it comes to immigration, has been exclusion, and there are articles that go into detail about that such as the Immigration history of Asian Americans. This is part of American history, but Asians for a great part of its history were excluded from it specifically by law. Furthermore, since the form of immigration were often significantly different between the different Asian ethnicities, it doesn't make for a clean narrative as say forced immigration (slavery) of African-Americans. Therefore, would we include this negative?

As for Hispanic and Latino immigration, there are sources out there, if we bother to look (National Park Service for example).

As I had stated before, a mention of the Great Migration is one thing, an entire sentence is IMHO undue weight, especially if the immigration, and exclusion, of other races are excluded.

Perhaps this is better handled in an article such as History of immigration to the United States, and a similar article History of migration within the United States (and perhaps here is an article that can be used as a source for it).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is meant by "a mention of the Great Migration is one thing, an entire sentence is IMHO undue weight"? What is your proposal for mentioning it? How would one mention it in historical order if not in a sentence? The sentence proposed is a mere factual statement, not an original research claim about the relative values of different migrations or of different migrants. (As for "you", it is more than a bit mystifying how that can offend, here, when your statements reference "I" and "my" (in "IMHO") and the standard written language response to such is "you".). Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The general thought that “A great deal of immigration history has been exclusion” is inaccurate; some has been. The United States historically and continues to legally admit more immigrants each year than all other nations combined, including the Asian.

I like the RightCowLeftCoast point of the significance, therefore for me, including something about the explosion of Latino immigration since 1960 from 6 million, 3.24% to 50 million, 16% over fifty years, and accelerating. That should qualify for WP:DUE weight. However, that does not argue for deleting a sentence on the Great Migration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, I am opposed to 'holding hostage' the Great Migration to something else that has not been proposed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

How about including it as part of the sentence about the migration that occurred during the Great Depression? How about including it as a lead up to the African-American Civil Rights movement.
As for immigration history being one exclusion, that is coming from the documented policies of U.S. in regards to Asian immigration into the United States. Other races were treated differently. It wasn't until after 1965, that migration of Asians into the United States were largely allowed, or not severally restricted. Prior there was the Asiatic Barred Zone, Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and all the way back to the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which barred Asians from naturalizing).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That works. Now lets see about including the baring of Asians, the growth in that population to the currently fastest growing population in the nation, and the immigration of Latino and Hispanics (off all races).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I guess I'm late to this discussion, but if we mention the black Great Migration, rather than leaving it as an unfinished talking point, we should mention its reversal over the past half century, as more blacks net have migrated to the south. Though that much space dedicated to an internal movement of a single minority race might be a reason for not mentioning it at all as this summary level at all. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Integration of Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and Pacific Islander migration waves

As discussed above, immigration of Native Americans, Europeans, and African Americans have been integrated in some fashion in the history section of the article, however this is not the case for the three other significant race and ethnic groups of the nation within the history section. This is something that should be tackled, and I hope I can get other editors to work with me to do so.
I am most adept at the history of Asian American immigration, however due to each ethnicity having unique immigration history, its hard to lump all in single sentence. The earliest Asians in what is now the United States, dates back to the 1700s (similar timeline), however due to laws baring entry and naturalization, the number of Asians allowed into the United States was a very small number, with an exemption of Filipinos (being U.S. Nationals) from the 1900s to 1930s, until significant numbers were allowed post-1965.
As I am not as adept on the history of Hispanic/Latino immigration to what is now the United States, are there individuals who are adept in this field, who can come up with text to include in this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be getting awfully detailed. Instead of getting into specific ethnic groups, maybe a very broad summary statement or two generalizing about immigration in the late 19th Century, 1920s, and/or post 1960s is called for, with the last one maybe being the most noteworthy since it's done the most to change the country's demographic/cultural makeup via third world immigrants. I'm still not sure the internal migration of blacks (or any other singled out group) needs coverage here, especially since that migratory trend reversed itself decades ago. In fact the general migration of Americans (regardless of race) from the northeast to the south and some western states in recent decades is more noteworthy, and probably something we should have included all along. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You cannot display the United States as a single contiguous country

The United States of America is 50 independent yet united states, therefore it is intellectuality dishonest to represent it as a single state. Therefore the map in the sidebar must be updated to show each state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jscipione (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is being discussed above, whether the United States can be a "sole person" internationally and include its five major territories for area and population. You are reflecting the much referred to but little quoted Blackstone. Likewise, the dated Encyclopedia Britannica 1901 reports the United States as states only and excludes the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories. That thought was current in the 19th century, before the rise of the concept of "government by consent of the governed" and before local self-government of DC and the territories.

I consider excluding non-states an anachronism, since the U.S. makes U.S. citizens equally among the states, DC and the five major territories. The expression "We the people" refers to the entire nation of the federal republic defined by citizenship and representation in the "national councils" of Congress. DC and the five major territories all have territorial Delegates as Members of Congress, so they are included in the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

International law regards the U.S. as a "sole person" because, as an administering power, it is responsible for the foreign affairs of its possessions. Nonetheless, the territories have some international personality and the U.S. must report to the U.N. for its administration of three of them. The states have agreed to merge their sovereignty for foreign relations. TFD (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The states and territories have agreed to merge their sovereignty for foreign relations, as have islander U.S. citizens and nationals who owe sole allegiance to the United States of America, so we include the five major territories in the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit you guys, he is not talking about the territories. Not everything is about the territories. He's talking about the idea that the federal government is just a loose federation and that the "true" nations are the states, which, y'know, is bullshit. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT THE TERRITORIES. PLUG THIS SHIT UP IN THE THE RFC AND STOP LEAKING OUT OF IT. --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Jscipione's omitting the non-state District of Columbia and the five major territories from "the United States" just as the 1901 Encyclopedia Britannica did. Golbez insists on this article enshrining the 1901 America in the Insular Cases which shared the same 19th century mindset, which is --- mistaken. However now he wants to add DC which has the same territorial Delegate as the five major territories, without adding the five major territories. Though akin to Jscipione's worldview in that Golbez would wiki-secede non-states from the United States as a sole-person nation, adding DC and admitting the U.S. is a nation internationally is an improvement.

However, the 21st century sources now include all U.S. citizens in the District of Columbia and the five major territories for "the United States" in a "geographical sense", for instance, the US Foreign Affairs Manual says the term ‘US’ geographically includes four territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas), and the 'outlying possession' (American Samoa) with sole allegiance to the United States [p.18,22]. That is the definition of the United States as a "sole person" internationally. Excluding U.S. non-state self-governing entities with territorial delegates such as the District of Columbia and the five major territories on Jscipione's part is --- mistaken. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

STOP LEAKING. PLEASE GO BACK TO YOUR RFC GHETTO AND LEAVE THE REST OF US TO ACTUALLY IMPROVE THE ARTICLE AND SHUT DOWN OBVIOUS TROLLS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Have a cup of tea and understand that calling other editors "TROLLS" in ALL-CAPS generally means you need a rest. This discussion is scarcely "end of life as we know it" importance, and you are far more likely to convince others when you use soft language. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Be civil you guys! Prcc27 (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Infobox Parameters

An editor removed parameters from the infobox without an edit summary. I have restored the parameters by a revert. If there is a reason for the removal, please explain either in the edit summary or here, or preferably both. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That edit you reverted also had replaced the US flag image with one that is deprecated as being less accurate on its own page (new has more purplish field). Also, some images got moved around, whether helpfully or un-, I couldn't tell. Anyway, I was about to revert, but you were quicker. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014

59.167.59.55 (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC) b tfJKKJ.WI2B4F 4CI

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

JFK assassination

Surely the assassination of President Kennedy warrants mention in the brief summary of the era, right? I mean, it was arguably the biggest single event of the century, certainly of the second half of the century.

2602:306:C5C6:CF50:F93D:1DDB:3687:F87D (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The events of that time mentioned--the Vietnam War, the moon landing, Civil Rights--probably deserve their place ahead of the Kennedy assassination, which didn't actually change much about how American day-to-day life was lived, nor did it have quite the historical and international significance of putting a man on the moon. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Native American music

Hi, my edit to the music section was reverted by RightCowLeftCoast with this explanation: "Why highlight a single type of music in this summary article?" Well, about half the music section is about African American music so I don't see why we shouldn't include Native American music since their music is indigenous. Maybe instead of listing Native American music as a main article I should have listed it as a further information article, but it should still be linked to. Furthermore, in almost every section on this article there is a picture so why not have a music recording for the music section? Prcc27 (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The reverted edit in question highlights a music of a specific race in the United States, giving it WP:UNDUE weight of music of other races and ethnicities in the United States. While it could be argued that it gives undue weight to African American music, perhaps it would be best to look at the main article Music of the United States and attempt to summarize it so it doesn't over-represent one Ethnic music, as is alleged above (the infobox for the main article on this subject list nine ethnic music listings (not including sub-listings)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't say much to the specific edit as I have not seen it but, I will say it seems ridiculous to say that it is undue weight to mention a specific race when referring to music in this instance as the American Indian, Native Hawaiian and native Alaskan cultures are still cultures within the U.S.. It isn't a matter of race but of origins, history and strong relevance that I agree with. --Mark Miller (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, adding a music file of any specific genre would likely be considered undue weight. Mentioning Native American music contributions to American music is not a bad idea however. there are many award winning artists actually.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Area in square miles

Why does this article name a different land area from the CIA World Factbook? (the number is not footnoted) 72.48.166.220 (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. Census Bureau reports “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. Km. This includes the states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The article should report the area internationally recognized as belonging to the United States.

"The table does not include area calculations for the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. The area measurements were derived from the Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER®) database. The boundaries of the states and equivalent areas are as of January 1, 2010. The land and water areas, including their classifications, reflect base feature updates made in the MAF/TIGER® database through August, 2010. The area measurements, in square kilometers and square miles, are for statistical purposes only."

The MAF/TIGER database is used for the geospatial data layer for Homeland Security activities, transportation layer of USGS National Map Program, House of Representatives, federal redistricting, distribution of federal funds to state, county and local government for schools, transportation, Medicare and others. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The info box and introduction text should read, 3,805,927 Sq. Mi. (9,857,306 Sq. Km.), excluding the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands, now added to the main article, footnoted to the U.S. Census Bureau, MAF/TIGER as of 2010.

The three sources earlier in the “Geography, climate and environment” section include a) Encyclopedia Britannica retrieved in 2008, b) Demographic Yearbook, 2005, and c) World Factbook 2009. The article should reflect the most recent 2010 database used by Homeland Security. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Pedroia1519 wants “CIA Factbook” numbers without a link citation or edition year, Gingeroscar seeks "only land area and inland waters", but has no reference for 3,678,208 sq.mi., — suspiciously close to the 2008 Encyclopedia Britannica. But the Britannica is not the "world" of reliable sources on this matter. Land area is reported by the U.S. Census as less than Gingeroscar’s unsourced "land and inland waters".

The U.S. Census table uses three categories, total area, land area and water area. Water areas are reported by the U.S. Census as total, inland, coastal, Great Lakes, and Territorial. Alaska alone has 19,304 sq.mi. Inland, 26,119 sq.mi. Coastal, and 49,320 sq. mi. Territorial area reported.

This summary article should use the U.S. Census Bureau figures for U.S. total area, a resource also used by the USGS and Homeland Security. The talk page should be used for discussion on the topic rather than initiating a slow motion edit war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I support, the figure used by the U.S. Census Bureau which differs from the value used by the World Bank, which list territories such as Guam separately, as being one that is verified to a reliable source. Changes to others have not been supported with a RS, and thus could be removed/reverted via WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Census Bureau provides totals for the United States (3,795,951 sq mi) and "State and other areas" (3,805,142 sq mi). I think we should use the figure for the United States. If we want to include the unincorporated territories then we should have a separate line which says including unincorporated territories or similar wording. An exact figure is not possible because shorelines can change or be determined in different ways. So any properly sourced figure is acceptable, but the Census Bureau seems better because it is possible to determine where, when and how it was determined. TFD (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Go with census bureau -- its data seems good enough for USGS. [9] Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So we have TVH, RightCowLeftCoast, and Alanscottwalker supporting U.S. Census bureau. Also TFD in a way, who persists in wanting to exclude islander U.S. citizens for whatever unspoken anachronistic and unsourced reason. Some territories are "unincorporated" for tax purposes from a century ago which benefits domestic sugar cartels. But the U.S. Census in the 21st century includes U.S. citizen islanders as "native-born", included uniformly with those in states, D.C., Puerto Rico and inhabited "Island Areas", occupying 3,805,927 Sq. Mi. (9,857,306 km²) in the United States for Homeland Security purposes, -- excluding the uninhabited U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Since this article is about the United States, I suggest we use the area provided by the U.S. Census Bureau under the line "United States." If you disagree with how the government of the United States determines what areas lie within its boundaries, then write to them pointing out their error. But we are not supposed to misrepresent sources. TFD (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for working this out on the discussion page. When you arrive at a conclusion, I hope you will place it in a "FAQ" blurb at the top of this page. I hate to see data changed! Particularly data that isn't supposed to change! :) Thanks. Student7 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sq.Mi. area edit break

Past consensus has been that the scope of this article is about the contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and its territories; as such we should use the land area that meets that scope.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We had long wasteful conversations about this and the consensus was that we would accept the view of the government of the U.S., its congress and supreme court, the administrations of the territories, the United Nations, and various legal consensus that overseas territories are not part of the Untied States. TFD (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• The dispute resolution in March 2013 reached a consensus by eight to three to include U.S. territories. The following five reliable sources avoid the pitfalls of original research.

1) Government self-definition. At Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... Puerto Rico and the N. Marianas."

2) Congressional enacted inclusion. ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [(36) p.23]. 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality.

3) Presidential authorized inclusion. Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." – all six territories.

4) Judicial inclusion. This is not original research: Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p.1175]

5) Scholarly inclusion. Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232). To date, there is no reliable counter source but editor's original research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"reached a consensus by eight to three" Don't think you know what consensus means. --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Consensus defined, we have, “Neither does consensus mean unanimity”. At Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, we have "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.” "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable.”

Those who wished to exclude islanders from the United States failed to find reliable sources to support their position. TFD did find one English-language weekly newspaper in Cuba which suggested Puerto Rico was not a part of the United States, but that is not the preponderance of scholarship discussed. And another editor did original research for internet uses of “unincorporated”. The incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy is a judicial term of art to justify discrimination among internal tax regimes of the US. The term excludes no place from the jurisdiction of the United States as a nation-state.

Indeed, the term “state” in the United States as defined in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (36) includes the 50 states, "District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the Untied States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands”. American Samoans are either U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals which the U.S. Census defines as “natural born” Americans. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The point was counting the votes. We don't vote on consensus here, we vote and discuss to try to obtain a consensus. A consensus was not "reached" by a result of 8 to 3 (I recall the math being iffy on that as well). And I will never cease to be amazed at your ability to insert your "American Samoa is a state" talking points in the most tangential of topics. --Golbez (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Insert: This chart of places which are within the United States does not make DC or any other territory into a state, nor does it pretend that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is constitutionally equivalent to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The chart reports places in the U.S. for Census, Homeland Security and other official U.S. governmental purposes, and as such it is an appropriate source for the area of the U.S. -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

TFD misrepresented the majority for inclusion as a *consensus for excluding* islanders from the U.S. Why the personal attack? Including America Samoa is not my doing, that is in the verifiable source from the U.S. Census reporting the area of the U.S. We have reliable sources to include them which are preferable to online almanacs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. Census Bureau excludes American Samoa from the area of the United States. Please look at the link you provided.[10] TFD (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Again a source including islands is misrepresented, and no source is presented to exclude them.

The first sentence introducing the chart titled State Area Measurements... says, "The table below provides land, water and total area measurements for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Island Areas.” -- note 2. This table does not include area calculations for the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands.

American Samoa is listed in the “Total” figure for "State and other areas” of the United States at the top of the chart in the first box of the first line, 3,805,927 sq.mi. It is listed individually, under "Island Areas", at 581 square miles. It is not excluded. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Again please read your source. There is a line for "United States", which provides the "Total Area" of the United States. The United states, per the note "Includes all 50 states and the District of Columbia." It does not include "other areas" outside the United States, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. TFD (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Puerto Rico is a part of the United States, so it is included in the first sub-chart figure "United States". But separating out the four other territories belonging to the United States is for the charting purposes, --- NOT to exclude those last four from the United States. The Northern Marianas might have chosen to become Japanese, Chinese, U.S. or independent; they chose by referendum to become a U.S. territorial Commonwealth.

The first box of the chart includes "50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Island Areas." Your original research WP:OR — to separate sub-charts for a POV that U.S. citizens are not a part of the U.S. though they are “native born” Americans, -- is inadequate to justify altering the source report for total square mile area. There are no sources to exclude the islands with Members of Congress chosen in federal elections.

On the other hand, there are sources to justify including the total 3,805,927 sq.mi. as reported in the source, since we have a) multiple Executive Orders to implement U.S. law including all five territorial areas, including Puerto Rico, and b) a scholar who may help, “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is included under "other areas" not the "United States." Certainly it is another area that the Census Bureau is responsible for. Since the Census Bureau considers it to be outside the U.S., that is how we must treat it.

Sparrow's argument is that the United States is not just the republic described in the constitution, but is an empire with exploited overseas colonies. While that might be true, that opinion differs from settled law.

TFD (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The plain organization of the chart at State Area Measurements... includes Puerto Rico in the "United States" subtotal on the last line. Why would you assert otherwise? It is a simple matter for editors to click on the reliable source, and see for themselves. The preponderance of reliable sources support including the five major territories in the U.S. area, only online almanacs are cited in opposition.

Sparrow argues the U.S. is an empire in the 20th century as long as islanders are disenfranchised, under presidentially appointed governor-general (not yet with a three-branch republican government), under the army or navy (not yet under the federal courts) and without Members of Congress. No reliable source excludes the five U.S. territories from the U.S. which now have territorial Members of Congress (Delegate, Commissioner) chosen in U.S. federal elections by mutually U.S. citizens in the 21st century.

Mainstream historians refer to American Imperialism to describe the era of its acquisition of overseas territories in the late 19th century, but that does not to refer to the 21st century territorial administration. Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review note, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p.1175] Your original research on the matter is unsupported by reliable sources.

You have been searching for over a year, and there is, as yet, no source to exclude U.S. citizen islanders from the United States in the 21st century. The Insular Cases note that only Congress can make islanders U.S. citizens, not the Supreme Court, and Congress has made them U.S. citizens by mutual territorial referendum, so they are now a part of the United States in the 21st century by the Supreme Court standard. Today we have multiple [Executive Orders] across administrations to implement U.S. law including all five modern territories. There is no modern source to exclude them to date. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please look at your source again. Note 4 says the "United States" " [i]ncludes all 50 states and the District of Columbia." There is no subtotal that includes the 50 states, D.C and Puerto Rico. There is however a total for "Island Areas", and the total for "State and other areas" "[i]ncludes all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas."[11] TFD (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a proposal for this article that is being discussed, if so what it it? The discussion seems somewhat beside the point, when the US is in fact exercising sovereignty over these territories, see eg., Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Virginia Historian's proposal is to include the unincorporated territories of the United States in the total area of the United States. England once exercised sovereignty over the American colonies - it does not mean that before 1776 England's area was 20 times larger than today. TFD (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The US has colonies now? Besides, is all this debate about a tiny fraction of miles (km), just footnote it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The politically correct term today is "overseas territories." The UK for example re-named its colonies "overseas territories" in the 1981 Nationality Act. The United States preferred the term "possessions" TFD (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: The U.S. colonies were not represented by territorial delegates in the House of Parliament, "no taxation without representation" is one of the rights of Englishmen. The American colonists had all the rights of English as though born in England, by colonial charter, but no Member of Parliament. In the 21st century, U.S. Territories are populated with U.S. citizens with territorial delegates in the Congress, called "Members of Congress", Congressman and Congresswoman on their webpages as sourced. There is a U.S. territorial Member of Congress (Delegate) from U.S. Virgin Islands, there is no Member of Parliament from U.K. Virgin Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Representation is not a criterion for being a part of a country. Some countries do not have legislatures, and for many years some cities in the U.K. lacked representation, as did D.C. Total red herring to your argument USVI is part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to disagree on this one. The incorporated territories of the past had delegates, so to simply discount that as not being a criteria doesn't work for me. My whole point in this entire argument is that the question, sadly, has never been concretely decided one way or another. Sparrow cannot annex land into the U.S., only the Congress can do that, affirmed by the President or the Supreme Court, and no source has been supplied saying this. Which is why I much prefer the current terminology of "possesses", and not go into the whole incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy here. What it basically comes down to is, we have to define the country for the sake of the facts and figures in the article. The easiest option is to use the fifty states and district, with a footnote in the infobox explaining this. The figures in the article should match the infobox, and the information for the territories should be mentioned separately. Basically, we should pick one definition and stick with it, completely, rather than having multiple versions in the text separated only by footnotes. If the best option is inclusion of the territories then we need to find a definition and stick to it, and that means figuring out if American Samoa counts, if the minor outlying islands count, if Palmyra Atoll counts, etc. Or, we can go with the doctrine of least surprise and go with what I'm guessing most readers expect, fifty states and a district, with the territories handled in separate breaths. The problem with the definition of the country could perhaps get a small section or paragraph here, and perhaps we'll get more learned people involved, or perhaps someone in Congress will take notice of it (we know they like Wikipedia) and actually propose something to make the status clear. --Golbez (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the whole argument is irrelevant. Great Britain's colonies, etc, seem irrelevant. The US nation possessing area, on the other hand, seems relevant.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Golbez stated criteria for including territories is satisfied, but he refuses to acknowledge it. The political scientist Sparrow in a reliable source, a peer reviewed publication, confirms the federal republic of the United States includes the five major territories, DC and 50 states. The Congress has enacted and the President confirms:

a) Congress passed in the Immigration and Naturalization Act as reenacted in 1986 provides that the term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands in "political union" with the United States of America. American Samoa is an “outlying possession of the United States”.

b) The President confirms that all five major territories are included, the ‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." [12]. Unsourced POV cannot devolve the five major territories from the United States in a geographical sense. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing of "Sec. 9. Definitions As used in this order:" means that the definition is to be used for interpreting the order, not for interpreting any other order. The U.S. president, like his recent predecessors, respects the right of self-determination of citizens of the territories and American international commitments. In any case, only Congress can incorporate territories into the U.S. TFD (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, just as the Insular Cases apply only to internal taxes on sugar. They do not apply to U.S. citizenship held by islanders in the 21st century which politically "incorporates" them by Congressional statute according to legal scholars. The Executive Orders, by Republicans and Democrats, apply to Homeland Security, Transportation and Environmental Protection for the United States in a "geographical sense".

There is no Executive Order to exclude the territories in the 21st century to create a need to balance conflicting sources in the current definition of the U.S. in a "geographical sense". Of course the rights of states and territories meet the U.N. standard for self determination, that is why Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas are off the colonial watch list as Commonwealths. The U.N. investigates, it does not devolve elements of member federal States. The federal system of the U.S. includes unelected hereditary rulers in parts of American Samoa, so yes it is flexible.

The choice for the article is between using sources from executive, legislative, judicial, legal scholars and political scientists versus POV without sourced quotes to exclude the five major territories in the 21st century. One unsourced footnote from a 2010 data base is not the preponderance of sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sq.Mi. area edit break II

The UK does not permit "overseas territories" representation in Parliament. U.S. allows its citizens in the five territories to elect Members of Congress in federal elections with all the privileges of a U.S. Representative but voting on the floor, including committees, party caucuses and appointing to four service academies.

Multiple sources since 1962 include the State Department Manual on ‘Insular Affairs’ interprets INA law as including four major territories as a part of the U.S., with Samoan nationals and citizens, the “last overseas territory”. But it has a territorial Member of Congress. --- Since 1990, GAO reports to Congress on the “Insular Territories” report the ‘five major territories’ have a constitutional status “equivalent to states”. Residences where U.S. citizenship is a birthright of the soil should be included in the area of the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Alanscottwalker, to accommodate TFD, we just need a footnote ... the area of the U.S. is 3,805,927 sq.mi., note: American Samoa, the last overseas territory, has an area of 581 square miles. -- ?

Another thought, the issue should be only, What is the U.S. in a geographical sense? We have sources asserting the U.S. in a geographical sense includes five territories. We have a source reporting the area of the United States of America with five territories included. There are no sources excluding them in the 21st century to justify editorially picking apart the source report of total area in the first box on the first line. Without sources, TFD is simply disruptive.

TFD would now explore terms of art in jurisprudence related to internal tariffs, "unincorporated" and such, which is just irrelevant to the discussion of the size of the U.S. in a geographical sense, especially since we know from sources that “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not just present the information the way the Census Bureau does? TFD (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the U.S. Census Bureau reports the “State area measurements” of the U.S. total 3,805,927 sq.mi., first box on the first line, --- The figure includes "the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Island Areas", and that figure is supported by other sources to include territories when "United States" is used in a geographical sense. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Does "island areas" include the minor outlying islands? --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's ignoring the fact that there is a separate line giving total for United States consisting of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Puerto Rico is a separate line item and the Island areas have a separate summation line, all of which roll up into the unlabeled Total for all of the areas under jurisdiction of the federal government. I don't think it is helpful for most readers to blur these distinctions. older ≠ wiser 15:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Golbez, Note 2: "This table does not include area calculations for the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands.” I disagree with editors seeking to impose original research or synthesis, either breaking up the total into sub-charts or adding multiple sources. Is there a single source reporting square mileage for the United States of America including Minor Outlying Islands? Let’s go with that one.

@ older≠unwiser. welcome back. The most helpful for the general reader is the first box on the first line, the scope of the chart, "the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Island Areas”. which is supported by sources for the “United States” in a geographical sense. At Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... Puerto Rico and the N. Marianas." Is there a source to exclude territories for the 21st century in a geographic sense? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If they are part of the country then there'd be a source of the high executive, congress, or the supreme court saying so. You've never furnished such beyond simple 'definitions' clauses that are used for legal expedience. But you know this. I wonder, why do you care so much to monotonously repeat the same points over and over again? If this was important, someone would have taken up the mantel. Finally, ... and I really hesitate to say this, because I adore using primary sources... but your interpretations of most of these primary sources falls under original research. Like when you say a definitions trumps all else. Or when you ignore when primary sources contradict (like how sometimes American Samoa counts as a state, sometimes it doesn't). You have a few secondary sources - Sparrow (ugh) - and those are more important than these meager primary ones, but they so far haven't proved really persuasive. The best primary source would be an affirmative statement from the high executive, congress, or supreme court that a territory is considered incorporated, or that the incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy no longer exists. --Golbez (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources that exclude Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa from the United States? I have seen TVH provide multiple reliable sources backing his claim, sources from the Federal Government. I have not seen others provide sources to exclude them, and zero sources from the Federal Government, at least recently. Therefore, the preponderance of reliable sources give weight, and thus we should give weight, to including those non-State areas as being part the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For one, The Virginia Historian's source, the U.S. Census Bureau clearly distinguishes between the United States. Puerto Rico, and "Island areas".[13] His other sources, definition sections of legislation, are not persuasive. The INA for example says American Samoa is part of the United States for American nationality but not for U.S. citizenship. The Post Office says that for the purposes of mail delivery, the territories are part of the U.S., but so is Palau and a Canadian base with U.S. servicemen, among numerous other areas not part of or subject to the U.S.

We discussed this some time ago. The Insular Cases determined that unincorporated territories cannot become incorporated into the United States except by an act of Congress. Furthermore, the U.S. added all these territories onto the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, which means they cannot become incorporated into the U.S. without the consent of the indigenous population. Alaska and Hawaii were anomalies, since they had already been incorporated into the U.S., yet the U.S. administered statehood plebiscites. Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands were removed from the list when the U.S. declared them Commonwealths in free association with the U.S.

TFD (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Insert. The territories in free association with the U.S. as an Associated state are Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, NOT the five territories which have agreed to owe permanent allegiance to the United States in referendums to become a part of the United States, including mutual U.S. citizenship and nationals. The five major U.S. territories are supported by sources to be included when "United States" is used in a geographical sense. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We have a source that clearly and unambiguously identifies the population and land area of the "United States" and includes as separate supplemental information the statistics for other areas under federal jurisdiction. older ≠ wiser 20:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We did have this discussion a while ago, and consensus was to be inclusive, not exclusive.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There are sources to include territories, there is still no source cited or linked to justify excluding territories in the geographical area of the United States of America, but original research parsing sub-charts. The USG defines itself as a sole person in international affairs, which is why I use Immigration and Naturalization primary and secondary sources. The states and territories are not separated as they are for domestic affairs, each entity of the nation is "as a state". In some original research editors place the federal pieces internally alongside the sole person internationally and claim U.S.G. “inconsistency” until it becomes a unified centralized state. That is nonsense. It is a federal republic, its territories have representation in the national legislature like Republic of France, unlike UK. They should be reported similarly to France.

The discussion of Insular Cases use of a term of art, “unincorporated”, is irrelevant to the international “sole person”. The cases set up an internal tax regime with the effect of underwriting a domestic sugar cartel in the early 1900s. The Supreme Court found itself incompetent to make islanders U.S. citizens for fear their presence would disrupt the country. Only Congress had that ability, and now in the 21st century they mutually have made U.S. citizens and federal representation in Congress with all five of the populated territories.

Only the incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy continues to exist for an internal tax regime, and for that only. But it is an artifact of history unrelated to the geographical area or political “sole person” of international affairs. It is irrelevant to this discussion. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” There is no 21st century counter source, only repetition of general allusions to century-old primary sources without quoting from them.

I have more than met every one of your sourcing requirements, you simply choose to ignore them. As before cited, John F. Kennedy at San Juan, PR, 1961. “…I am in my country… and I am glad to be in America this afternoon. “ Barak Obama San Juan PR, 2011. “I include Puerto Rico… every day, [Puerto Ricans] help write the American story...” And executive orders across Republican and Democratic administrations. And so it goes, there are sources to include territories, there is still no source cited or linked to justify excluding territories in the geographical area of the United States of America as a sole person in the international community. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, see Flores, Lisa Pierce, The History of Puerto Rico (2009), part of the Greenwood Histories of Modern Nations, p. xiii, "U.S. courts have ruled that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States but not part of the United States...."[14] Do you have a recent Supreme Court decision that has overturned this, or are we just going to say that because the U.S. delivers the mail, it must be in the U.S.? TFD (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources are good. This is the first try, only TFD has wp:cherry picked the source. As with most academics, we have on-the-one-hand-on-the-other. On the same page, xiii, we have from Flores, “Of course, it could be argued that this terminology makes no sense if you believe, as many people do, that Puerto Rico is part of the United States. Even some U.S. court opinions differ on this matter.” Notice the second part is in the present tense, and applies in the 21st century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Source. 48 U.S. Code § 737 - Privileges and immunities. "The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States.”

Source. In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 252 (1901) "The Supreme Court of the United States is unanimous in its interpretation that the extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution of the United States to the inhabitants of a territory in effect produces the incorporation of that territory. The net effect of incorporation is that the territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the United States and cannot, from then on, be separated."

"Indeed, the whole body of the U.S. Constitution is extended to the inhabitants of that territory, except for those provisions that relate to its federal character. Notice must be taken that incorporation of a territory takes place through the incorporation of its inhabitants, not of the territory per se.” The inhabitants of the territory are made U.S. citizens to politically incorporate them, while the territories per se remain “unincorporated” for an internal tax regime, part of the United States “federal character".

Source. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” There are no counter sources for the 21st century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"It could be argued" does not invalidate what has already been stated as fact. TFD (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You misread Flores, p. xiii by cherry picking. The facts have changed over a century of developing relationships with the territories, as communicated to editors reading sources: a). 48 U.S. Code § 737 - Privileges and immunities. b). In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 252 (1901). and c). Lawson and Sloane report in the Boston College Law Review, --- none of which is contradicted in Flores at your citation. You have not chosen to read cited sources during this discussion.

Puerto Rico’s status is "as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union” by law, that "in effect produces the incorporation of that territory.” according to the judiciary, and therefore legal scholars have concluded, "Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” It remains "unincorporated" for an internal tax regime related to the federal character of the U.S., which is unrelated to the "sole person" of the U.S.A. presented in the international community. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In sum An official total area provided by an agency of the US seems dispositive - that is the area within which a person born is subject to the power of the US government - i.e. 3,805,927 sq. mi. Any other "area" makes no sense, nor is this the place to discuss whether any place is rightfully considered to be subject to the US government. I trust this covers any cavils as to areas, and makes my opinion that the argumentation otherwise is bootless. Collect (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The area of the U.S. is not reported including judicially "incorporated" Palmyra Atoll. The judicial creation of incorporated/unincorporated is an arcane term of art related to an internal tax regime, it appears nowhere in the databases for U.S. geographical area. Nowhere do reliable sources make a report for the official area of the United States of America as "the judicially incorporated fifty states, the federal district and Palmyra Atoll." Because the judicial concept from one hundred years ago does not apply to the subject matter of the U.S. for the 21st century in a "geographical sense". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Persons born in Palmyra and the unincorporated territories of the U.S. are subject to the U.S. Incidentally, Collect, do you have a source that supports your interpretation of constitutional law? It would mean that before 1776-1783, the American colonies were part of England, while Canada is today part of the U.K. TFD (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As Palmyra Atoll has no inhabitants to rationally have people born there, I suggest that it is not much of a cavil to raise. The bit about whether a person born in a place is subject to a particular government has been discussed on this article in the past, and I find it bootless to rehash those interminable discussions.

And in fact the New England colonists did regard themselves as being English citizens - and it was to protect the rights they asserted they already held as citizens that the revolution was eventually forced on them. See [15]

"diverse of our loving Subjects of this our Realme of England" has Charles I clearly specifying that the people of Connecticut were English, that they held the same rights "as other our leige People of this our Realme of England" held, and (notably)

"That all and every the Subjects of vs, our heires or Successors which shall goe to Inhabite within the said Colony, and every of their Children which shall happen to bee borne there or on the Sea in goeing thither or returneing from thence, shall have and enjoye all liberties and immunities of free and naturall Subjects within any the Dominions of vs, our heires or Successors, to all intents, Construccons and purposes whatsoever, as if they and every of them were borne within the Realme of England."

There is no reading of this Charter which would indicate that the people of Connecticult did not consider themselves absolutely the equals of any other English people. Canada has not been "part of the UK" since confederation in 1867. Collect (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the people of Connecticut were English subjects (there were no citizens of the UK, Canada, India, etc. until after WW2), but they did not consider Connecticut to be part of England. When the UK did introduce citizenship, people in overseas territories and Commonwealth Realms were excluded, although belongers to the territories were extended citizenship in the 1981 nationality law. TFD (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

They had all the rights and obligations of English citizens -- which quite appears to have made then English citizens, and the charter does not say "Connecticut is not part of England" as you should note - it is named as a place, but not as a sovereign entity of any sort. Canada had its own citizenship as of 1867 with the BNA act [16] "During the American Civil War, however, authorities in the United States wanted more reliable certification from people living in Canada. In 1862, the Governor General, Viscount Monck, introduced a centralized system for issuing passports. For the next 50 years, a Canadian passport was really a "letter of request" signed by the Governor General. " The "Immigration Act of 1910" restricted immigration and required British subjects who were neither born in Canada or domiciled in Canada to now get a visa to enter Canada. The GG of Canada thus issued "Canadian" documents from 1862 on to 1910, roughly, and not "British passports" which had to be obtained from the Foreign Office in London. Note also that Newfoundland was not even part of Canada. The Empire did not confer citizenship on every group - the citizenship of Connecticut was conferred directly by King Charles II, who would ordinarily be deemed competent to decide who his subjects were. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Poll for two alternatives.

To follow Alanscottwalker's proposal for a footnote, using the U.S. Census “State and other areas” which uses the MAF/TIGER database, shared by the USGS and Homeland Security:

A: leave the 3.80 million sq.mi. in the article mainspace intro and 3,805,927 sq.mi. in the info box --- with a footnote, -- the states and DC alone are reported as having an area of 3,796,742 sq.mi., OR

B: 3,796,742 sq.mi. in the info box --- with a footnote, --- the total area of 3,805,927 sq.mi. reported includes the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Count: A - 4, either - 1, B - 1, only one - 1, neither - 1. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

---

A. leave the 3.80 million sq.mi. in the article mainspace intro and 3,805,927 sq.mi. in the info box --- with a footnote, -- the states and DC alone are reported as having an area of 3,796,742 sq.mi. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

B.Use the total area for the United States as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau (3.7 m sq. mi.), with a note for U.S. and other areas (3.8 m sq. mi.). TFD (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

B. or A. To be honest, as long as there is a footnote that describes the various figures, I'm OK with either alternative. older ≠ wiser 20:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: Actually, Alanscottwalker modified his proposal in a discussion on his homepage from a footnote to propose C. include both without a footnote to either: X mi/km (inhabited total)[fn] / Y mi/km (States and DC) [fn]. I think that might be too cluttery in the info box but I like the idea if there is an elegant solution. I agree with you, ultimately, either alternative will be satisfactory depending on the outcome of the poll. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The infobox must be internally consistent. All values must pertain to the same country. It doesn't make sense to use one definition for population and another for area. So whatever decision is made, it must apply to every value in the infobox. --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

B. without additional changes in the info box, am I correct? or NEITHER --- @Golbez:, are you against showing the first box on the top line of the source in the info box, even in a footnote? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not selecting A or B so you can abandon trying to tie me down to one. When I choose, if I choose, then I will choose, and it will not be in response to your prodding. "Against showing the first box in the top line of the source in the info box" I don't know what you mean. There are a lot of modifiers there. --Golbez (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A as being accurate. AFAICT, there is nothing in any policy or guideline saying infoboxes must meet some particular "consistency" as long as the information is properly cited in the article. Collect (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact, consistency is a very important part of writing a Wikipedia article. You should know that. It's not a mere cavil. I'm simply saying, it makes no sense to have area containing the territories and population not, or vice versa. Nor does it make sense to use a footnote for those but not the other entries in the infobox that involve the territories, like economy, demographics, time zone, and even what side of the road they drive on. Why is area the only thing that should get this treatment? Or is it okay to give our readers a different definition for every statistic so long as it's properly cited? After all, there are at least five definitions for the United States, maybe we can work all five into the infobox? (States+DC; States+DC+Palmyra; States+DC+inhabited territories; States+DC+inhabited territories-American Samoa; States+DC+all territories) --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is to have a sourced online encyclopedia, even though all statistical sources do not align in all parameters, such as duration reported or date of release. The source under discussion, U.S. Census Bureau State Area Measurements reports a total area for "the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Island Areas.” It is supported by other reliable sources, to include the five major territories for the total area of the United States, in a “geographical sense”, the subject under discussion.

Some editors have expressed a preference for reporting "50 states and DC" which is data also available at the U.S. Census Bureau source. I would like to include both sourced figures, with one footnoted so as not to clutter the info box. Alanscottwalker has proposed using both without relegating one into a footnote, I am interested in that if we can find an elegant solution for the info box presentation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If the infobox contains information based on one definition of the country, and we footnote information based on another, then we must footnote ALL differing entries in the infobox with the other definition. Area, population, economy. There's no logical reason to ONLY do it for area. Is that what you are proposing? --Golbez (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the area for the United States and "other areas" does not include all the areas under U.S. sovereignty, just 5 overseas inhabited areas. The correct description is "the United States and its 5 inhabited overseas territories." No reason for this level of description in the info-box. Just report the total area of the United States, which is after all the subject of this article. TFD (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"Just report the total area of the United States." OK, define the United States. :P --Golbez (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Define the U.S. in a "geographical sense”, with sources from the 21st century? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

At Homeland Security publication for adult readers with English as a second language, Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... Puerto Rico and the N. Marianas.” Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232). To date, there is no reliable counter source but editor's original research parsing sub-charts without sources to exclude U.S. territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised this question never occurred to me, but: "... the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories," do you know if Sparrow is including the uninhabited ones? Does he say one way or the other? Because if not then Sparrow is not delivering a decisive definition of the country that matches with your other cherry-picked sources (which don't match with each other wrt American Samoa), and we can blessedly stop pasting that blasted sentence every day. --Golbez (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sparrow and others wrote in motions to U.S. courts Court,, "Amici' herein assert that because the Guantanamo Naval Base operates as part of the United States and not as a separate sovereign territory, the Constitution applies to all proceedings and all individuals held there subject only to the same limitations as would be found to apply to non-citizens in the territorial United States. At a minimum, though, based on the reasoning and holdings consistently put forth by the Supreme Court from the Insular Cases to the Court’s decision in Boumediene, the Constitution’s core protections, including First Amendment freedom of speech rights, Article 1 protections regarding ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, and Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection, must govern the proceedings at issue."[17][18] I would point out that the Supreme Court came down to a majority decision in favor of his "minimum", while the minority rejected both arguments.

So basically he is saying that the territories are part of the U.S., the Supreme Court and U.S. government are wrong, and all are acting illegally. Does anyone think the article should say that?

TFD (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Golbez: In the sourced article, Sparrow treats the “political limbo” of U.S. territories —Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas, and the areas of “political limbo” within States administered by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. He does not address the Guantanamo Naval Base as an island territory in the sourced article. More TFD straw-man.

In the same way you cannot find a source which says, "the U.S. geographically includes only the judicially incorporated areas of the 50 states, DC and Palmyra Atoll", I cannot find a source which says, the U.S. geographically "includes 50 states, DC, five major territories and nine uninhabited places". The Info Box should reflect the geographical area of the United States reported in sources. There is no requirement for all Info Box entries to conform to a standard database for all U.S. government, there is no such consistency across U.S. federal agency databases. However, there is Executive Order 13423, among other primary sources, which reports "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands."

The best source for the area of the United States is found at the The U.S. Census Bureau In the published chart, the contents of the first box on the first line 3,805,927 sq.mi. and it includes the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• A, --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• A, while I am in general agreement with older-wiser, I will come down for A. This Sovereign state, called the United States, has land territory, which has an area. The legal argument is beside the point, and generally the sources treat the inhabited territory as of moment, while the uninhabited territories are not so treated -- after all, the uninhabited territory is de minimis in area, it is uninhabited by US nationals (or anyone), and the the largest is a reef that looks like that: Kingman Reef - (it must be impossible to actually find a land area there in practical terms); the largest that is not the reef is a 2 sq. mile speck. The arguments about Great Britain and France are irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

An Opinion

In my opinion, both figures on the area should be included in the article. The only question is which figure to include in the infobox. (Infoboxes inherently oversimplify, which is why they are contentious.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Seconded! (The United States clearly has multiple well-established meanings. This article (and perhaps an offshoot that goes into detail, say Geography_of_the_United_States#Area) should reflect that, but in general, in other articles, only one should be given. How the US government defines itself should be a prime determinant, and I ack that we don't necessarily have consensus on what that is.) --Elvey^(t•c) 17:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions About Poll

First, can someone please summarize what are the two alternatives about the area? Which territories are excluded in the smaller alternative? Second, is there a reason why we are not using a Request for Comments to get consensus on the infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

We had an RFC over whether or not the territories were part of the country, and it devolved madly into a discussion of how to word the sentence defining the country in the intro - skipping over the question entirely and working on writing a sentence by voting on each bit of it in committee, and obviously it came out horrible, a true insult to English. So I reverted it. No attempt has been made since. I'd love to have an RFC on this matter, both the matter of defining the scope of the country, as well as what statistics should be used in the infobox, as long as it actually focuses on the meat of the questions rather than assuming a solution and jumping straight to stabbing the Queen's with a rusty fork. --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is not written in the Queen's English. This article is written in American English. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This is true, but my language was so flowery as to not have required your statement on this. Obviously it is. I'm American. But thanks for the reminder, I guess? The fact is, what they created was shit. --Golbez (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Insert. We had a dispute resolution where the majority voted to include islander U.S. citizens in the United States similarly to the usage at France, since both are republics and both admit islanders to the floor of their national assembly with privileges to initiate legislation.

The first sentence would read, “The United States…is a republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district and five major territories.” as sourced. Golbez remarked at the time, he allowed it in, he could take it out until there was unanimity to include U.S. citizens with territorial representation in the Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In the published chart published by the U.S. Census Bureau, “States areas", the contents of the first box on the first line 3,805,927 sq.mi. includes the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”. Other editors would exclude territories without supporting sources to exclude them. In trying to find a resolution, I proposed a “Poll for two alternatives”, for reporting the total U.S. area in the info box.

• A. Report area including territories, footnote 50 states and DC area.
• B. Report 50 states and DC area, footnote area including territories.

I have seen polling among collaborative editors work elsewhere. Although the poll count is now A - four, A or B - one, B - one, only A or only B - one, neither yet - one. -- I am afraid I am not practiced in the proper timing of when to go for a Request for Comment, -- I agree it may be time for a Request for Comment, if you think that is the proper next step. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a possible wording:

In the U.S. Census Bureau's table, "State and other areas (Note 2)", which line do they present as the total area of the United States:

A Total (Note 3) 3,805,927 Sq. Mi.

B United States (Note 4) 3.796,742 Sq. Mi.

Note 2 says, "This table does not include area calculations for the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands."

Note 3 says "Includes all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas [American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands]"

Note 4 says, "Includes all 50 states and the District of Columbia."

The information is required in the info-box for total area. Please note the discussion is about what the source says, not whether it correctly defines the area of the U.S.

In order for RfC.s to be successful, the discussion needs to be concise. I suggest thatother than noting whether we chose A or B, we not discuss the issue further in the RfC and allow other editors to comment.

Do you agree with the wording?

TFD (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Of the eight editors participating in the discussion, four now chose to lead with the 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., then footnote with the 3.796,742 Sq. Mi. You have now joined with one editor to propose only one or the other for the info box. Golbez our administrator wants to unify the scope of both area and population and report only one in the info box, which is effectively the same thing. --- consolidating area and population is reflected in the last RfC proposal below, which I agree to because an RfC is likely to bring more voices to the discussion than the present eight. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Question - I've just started seriously reading this discussion and don't yet have a firm opinion, but if we're going to use these "Total" figures in the text, shouldn't they be rounded to 3.81 (or just 3.8) and 9.86, rather than "3.80" and "9.85", or is there something I'm missing? VictorD7 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@VictorD7: I think 3.80 and 9.85 is just truncating the figures rather than rounding. Rounding should be permissible, depending on the database selected. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC Suggestion

I think that it is time for an RFC. I propose that the wording should be: This RFC has to do with the area to be listed in the infobox for United States. Should the area listed include the area of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 5 territories, or should it include that area of the 50 states and the District of Columbia? The other figure for the area will be listed in a footnote. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, as you're asking completely the wrong question. If you go forward with this I'll have to fight it as fostering inconsistency and aiming, once again, towards writing an answer without having answered the question. --Golbez (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Then how do you want the RFC worded? What is the question that you want asked? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"What definition of the United States should Wikipedia use?" Because this impacts a lot more than just this one article. Confining it purely to the area of the infobox simply means we have to ask again if someone wants to add it to the population, or economy, or anything else in the infobox. There's no reason I can think of to ask solely about the area. And because there's multiple definitions that can be used that all have veracity. That the country includes the fifty states and district is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not it includes any, some, or all of the following: 1) Palmyra Atoll; 2) the organized inhabited territories; 3) American Samoa; 4) the minor outlying islands. Each of these four places or groups of places can all be considered in or not in the country based on what sources one looks at or what interpretation one has of the law, and that ambiguity needs to be dealt with by the community. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The definition of the United States should not affect any articles other than this article. Other articles should not try to define the United States, because they should link to this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

So no changes would have to be made to the lists of countries by area, population, population density, etc.? Changing the area in one single place on Wikipedia - in the infobox on this one article - solves all problems, no matter that it would disagree with the numbers used everywhere else? Furthermore, if the territories are part of the country and not separate, then they shouldn't be listed separately in various articles. Also, the articles on the territories should be updated to make it clear that they are part of the country. Also, ... you start to see why this impacts much more than a single entry in a single infobox, right? Or is literally this all that matters, and you're fine with Wikipedia being entirely inconsistent with itself? You've been here long enough, so your stance really confuses me. --Golbez (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The point about lists is well taken, now that you mention it. You hadn't mentioned the lists until now. It doesn't change the basic question, which is which territories to include in the area in the infobox and in the lists. I was trying to ask what the choices of area were. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. with Robert McClenon. Other iterations of original research have no sources supporting them for geographical area, they are not a part of the proposed RfC. --- No editor is “fostering inconsistency” in the info box, inconsistency is the nature of the sources available on the U.S. as Golbez points out. --- The only source under discussion has a) the total area reported including the five major territories in the Total report, and b) the subtotal of U.S. and DC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As is well understood, the U.S. is responsible for the foreign affairs of its overseas possessions. But that alone does not mean those territories are part of the U.S. In the same sense, the the UK is responsible for the foreign affairs of the BVI. In any case all of this is original research. You need a source that says, "because the U.S. is recognized as the administering power in the U.S.V..I., those islands are part of the U.S. And if you want to show that the relationship is different from the BVI, then find a source that explains that. TFD (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No. It is the asserter of the direct relevance of the BVI that must produce the reliable source to says that the BVI in area is directly relevant to the USVI in area, otherwise your analogy is OR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

NO. TVH brought up the BVI to show that non-self-governing territories of the United States differ from those of other countries. Somehow the fact they have an observer in Congress overturns the insular cases and incorporates them into the U.S. That requires a source. TFD (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If that is what you are responding to, than it is difficult to make sense of your comment since the entirety of the comment you responded to says nothing about the UN nor insular cases. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD is off on a tangent. The territories of the U.S. are self governing in three-branch elective territorial government, two of the five are so certified by the U.N. The territorial delegates are not parliamentary observers, because they sit on the floor of the House, address the floor, offer amendments, and vote in committee. There is no such individual for BVI as there is for USVI, their status are not comparable in their respective national councils.

In a republic, those places which are a part of the nation must have representation in the national councils, which the U.N. acknowledges for Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas. Congress allows the same powers for all territorial delegates as it does for the judicially "incorporated" DC. They are "a part of" the republic of the U.S. as is the District of Columbia. Lets continue with a sourced discussion on the proposed RfC.

We know the five major territories are included in the U.S. in a "geographical sense" from direct sourced quotes linked above. And there is no 21st century source provided as yet to substantiate editor efforts to exclude the five major territories from the total U.S. geographical area, only original research from century-old Insular Cases. Agree with Robert McClenon on the RfC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is some agreement that we should have an RFC on what is in the infobox. If there is another question that needs to be answered, another RFC may be appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Note, a change in content here may contradict an article elsewhere, and this article and that article maybe tagged with Template:Contradict-other.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Virginia Historian, the source you provided says that the territories are not part of the U.S. In order to say they are, we need a source that says that. Alanscottwalker, you said, "It is the asserter of the direct relevance of the BVI that must produce the reliable source to says that the BVI in area is directly relevant to the USVI in area, otherwise your analogy is OR." That is not my analogy, that is TVH's analogy. If you want to support TVH's argument that the BVI and U.S.V.I. are different, therefore the U.S.V.I. is part of the U.S., while the BMI are not part of the UK, then you need a source that says that. I do not need a source that says that is wrong. It could be that no reliable sources have ever made your (and TVH's) argument, therefore there are no sources to refute it. It's as if you were to claim that the the U.S.V.I.. were part of Mexico and asking me to find a source saying they were not. It is not OR when I refute your claim and ask for sources.

BTW, TVH, since you think we should provide Sparrow's opinion as fact, should we mention that (as he says) the U.S. government does not agree with him and also that Guantanamo Bay is part of the U.S. and the U.S. is an "empire?" TFD (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, how do deal with TFD misrepresenting direct quotations to include five major territories in the area of the U.S., from sources linked here? He says they do not exist, but they do here. Golbez says I should not repost them, that when I do, I am the one acting in bad faith. But it is TFD who offers no counter-quotes, no sources, no links, only specious counter claims.

TFD further says another source from the same author (Sparrow) includes more than the five major territories found in the U.S. Census source and that Sparrow admits the U.S. government does not include more than the five major territories with representation in Congress as a part of the United States, such as Guantanamo. The Sparrow article "Empires internal and external...federalism in the United States" includes only the five major territories. That only means TFD needs to find a source reporting the larger area or he should stop disrupting the discussion concerning the scope of the U.S. Census Bureau chart, as directly quoted and linked above which reports the "States Areas" to include the five major territories at 3,805,927 sq.mi.

Internationally the U.S. presents itself as a "sole person". Executive Orders to implement the law from both Republicans and Democrats report the U.S. "in a geographical sense" includes the five major territories. As yet, there is no source provided to exclude them from the U.S. "in a geographical sense". TFDs Sparrow cite only suggests a larger area, not reported in any database under discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD, BVI is not the same as USVI, they are different places - your demanding a source for that? Just look on any map. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course they are different places, The Virginia Historian has used a comparison of the two countries in order to show that the U.S.VI.. is part of the U.S., while the B.M.I. is not part ot the U.K., despite having identical status as non-self-governing territories. I would like to see a source that makes the comparison, not another editor's opinion. TFD (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Another Effort at RFC wording

Let's try another effort at the wording of the RFC.

"Should the figure for the area of the United States be defined as: the fifty states and the District of Columbia; or the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and five territories? The figure will be listed in the infobox, as well as in lists of countries. The alternate area figure will be footnoted in the infobox and addressed in the body of the article."

The five territories should be listed in parentheses in the lede of the RFC. Which five territories are they?

I think that should summarize the issue about the wording of the RFC, and I wasn't asking the wrong question, just trying to get clarification. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Should the figures for the area and population of the United States be defined as: the fifty states and the District of Columbia; or the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and five territories? The figure will be listed in the infobox, as well as in lists of countries. The alternate area and population figures will be footnoted in the infobox and addressed in the body of the article." Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The five major U.S. territories are listed in Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." – These are the five territories listed in the “States Area…” chart published by the U.S. Census Bureau to make the reported total of 3,805,927 sq.mi. Trying to stay with sources and databases in the 21st century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The United States article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: United States, Countries, North America and United States Public Policy. Can we publish the RfC to all interested parties? What other means to publicize the RfC can effectively bring more editors into the discussion? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It is of interest to many more articles. According to you, Blackstone was wrong and there are serious errors in general understanding of public international law that need to be addressed. TFD (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Why yes indeed, Blackstone should be overturned by "government by consent of the governed". He was used to support secessionists in the United States in 1861, but democracy of the "We the people" won, as Lincoln so eloquently explained in the Gettysburg Address. I support U.N. investigations into the self governance of minority peoples around the world. Two of the U.S. territories are no longer under investigation, all of the British still are. Part of the difference is that the five major U.S. territories all have territorial representation by Members of Congress (territorial delegates) in the "national councils" with local three-branch self governance. The British have recently caught up by extending citizenship to islanders and expanding local self-governance, but they still lack delegates on the floor of Parliament who have the right to speak, offer motions from the floor, and propose legislation and vote in committee as do their U.S. counterparts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions about area

As far as I can tell, it is a decision between putting in the infobox all the land territory claimed by the United States (100%) or only 99.75%. 99.75% being the states and DC, and the 0.25% being various islands. The "dispute" on the other hand is all these other arguments that are not about "area". Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Because if you include the territories in the area in the infobox, then there's no reason not to include them in the other entries in the infobox, like population and economy. And if we're going to do that then we need to know just how we're defining the country. --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that does not sound like a bad thing for an encyclopedia (rather the opposite), the more cited information the better, but that does not mean the encyclopedia has to be finished. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. My point is simply, this isn't just about area. If you change the definition of the country for the area, you need to change it for all the other entries like population and economy. No matter how the discussion on what the definition of the country is goes, that is non-negotiable. --Golbez (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am saying it is just about area, that's why the line is called that - it is not a definition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, so if the area we use in the Infobox includes the territories, should the population? Economy? What side of the road people drive on? Consistency is extremely important, as is the principle of least surprise. Or is every single thing going to have a footnote, which is also not tenable? It's clearly not just about area, because this is an infobox on the whole country, not just its area. --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Least surprise? Come on, that's not serious: 0.75% - this is about area - just area. We can and should source things like numbers - because a major purpose of ours is to help people find those sources and we want to 'say where you got it'. Long infoboxes contain multiple sources - unless we decide there is only one source for the entire infobox, which would be odd - and likely has not ever been done, since the infobox is the Pedia's own design, and to copy so would likely breach someone's copyright. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, so we have an area, including the territories, with a source. And we have a population, excluding the territories, with a source. No footnotes explaining that they use different definitions. And you think this won't confuse our readers? --Golbez (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

My position is both should have sources, so it will be sourced; and no, not confusing: people are very different from land in multiple ways, and most people understand that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Except you'd be excluding people in territories that are included in the area. It would be like the population for New York excluding Manhattan, but which is included in the area. You don't see how that's confusing? ... I can't handle this nonsense anymore. You kids have fun, I'll come by when it takes actual form rather than trying to talk sense at this early stage. --Golbez (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No. No one is excluding anything, they are following sources. Population estimates are very different from area calculations; populations change all the time (for example generally people in the recent decades are moving from PR to the mainland) and no it's nothing like Manhattan - the raw number is well within error for national population estimate. Land, by contrast, generally takes many lifetimes to alter - so no one even keeps track of it, every second, year, or decade. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

1. There are sources quoted including areas, "Geographically the U.S. is 50 states, DC and five major territories..."

2. There is NO source quoted excluding areas, "Geographically the U.S. is 50 states and DC alone..."

3. To exclude the territories in the geographic area, you need more than editor original research parsing sub-charts in sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact we have no sources saying the U.S. is 50 states and D.C. plus 5 populated territories. Your source, Sparrow includes Guantanamo Bay for example. The issue becomes more complex when discussing history. The incorporation of the Philippines would have substantially increased U.S. population for example. TFD (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Still no source to exclude the five major territories from the U.S. area. Sparrow does not assert Guantanamo has a territorial Delegate anywhere, you misrepresent the Sparrow article in "Louisiana Purchase" cited, and you refuse to acknowledge other sources directly quoted, including legislation, executive orders and secondary government publications summarizing the law.

For instance, the Homeland Security publication, Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, ... Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas." The Philippines were never granted U.S. citizenship by Congress. Again, there is no 21st century source to exclude U.S. citizens from the United States, nor the five major U.S. territories from the U.S. in a "geographical sense". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This is literally the fifth time in this single discussion you have brought up that pamphlet. That's not a sound, respectful, or honest way to debate. Please stop repeating arguments just for the sake of repeating them. --Golbez (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Still no source to exclude the five major territories from the U.S. area. Guantanamo is not one of the five major territories. TFD broke faith by misrepresenting Bartholomew H. Sparrow, in his contributory article “Empires: external and internal: territories, government lands, and federalism in the United States” found in the volume, “The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansionism 1803-1898.” (2005) which he co-edited with Sanford Levinson. There should be an administrator intervention, what should be the recourse?

In this quote on page 231, Sparrow enumerates the American territories as “The present-day territories of the United States—Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas——“ Nowhere does “Guantanamo" appear in the article, it is not in the article scope, federalism. There are other corroborating sources which TFD and Golbez refuse to acknowledge, without offering a source to exclude the five major territories from the U.S. area. How is it not sound debate to restate sources in the face counter-argument without sources? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"Please stop repeating arguments just for the sake of repeating them." And then you ... repeat Sparrow just for the sake of repeating him. I'm forced to assume you're no longer discussing in good faith (if you ever were) and react accordingly. --Golbez (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That was not a repetition, it was a new quote from Sparrow to answer a new TFD misrepresentation of Sparrow’s concept of “present day territories of the United States”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case I apologize; after you posted the exact same quote from Sparrow three times in this single discussion, in addition to the countless times you've done it before, I tend to just hear the same buzzing sound in my brain when you bring him up. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Virginia Historian, I provided the source from Sparrow above, his presentation to the U.S. courts above. I quoted his presentation, which he shared with other writers, as saying, "because the Guantanamo Naval Base operates as part of the United States and not as a separate sovereign territory, the Constitution applies to all proceedings and all individuals held there subject only to the same limitations as would be found to apply to non-citizens in the territorial United States."[19]

This exercise would go faster if you observed "no personal attacks", read other editors' comments before replying, accuately quoted sources such as the Census Bureau, and stopped posting extrremely long postings that continually repeat the same things. One of the consequences of doing this is that you invite other editors to repeat what they have already said. Yes we know that Sparrow said the territories of the U.S. (all of them) are part of the U.S., we know that many of the rights enjoyed by people born in and living in the U.S. have been extended to the territories, that they get U.S. Post Office delivery and other federal services, that they are treated as part of the U.S. for some purposes, and that a government agency says in a pamphlet that they are part of the U.S. And some of the phrasing of the Insular Cases was racist. We do not need to have each of these poiints repeated ``ad nauseum``.

TFD (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I confused the phrase Your source, Sparrow includes Guantanamo Bay when of course, my Sparrow source did no such thing. Thank you. But then why do you persist in contesting the point of including the five major territories in the area of the U.S. in a “geographic sense”? --- The "pamphlet" is a reliable secondary source of the U.S. government summarizing the law as it applies in the 21st century, not an editor's interpretation of primary sources from a century ago. ---

You refer to the U.S. Census Bureau as excluding territories, but there is only the quote to include them, "The table below provides land, water and total area measurements for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Island Areas.”, --- and it reports the total figure of the "States Areas" including the five major territories in the first box on the first line of the totals. Recall the U.S. regards itself as a "sole person" internationally. — We should not rely on original research to parse through the sub-charts when it has no supporting sources to define the U.S. in a "geographical sense". --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you follow the reasoning of Sparrow, then the U.S., has incorporated all territories including Guantanamo Bay and the full constitution applies to them. Ergo, anyone born in Guantanamo Bay or the Kingman Reef is a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and all rights including keeping and bearing arms and jury trials apply to them. You cannot just say you accept his reasoning in some things, not in others, and use his writing as a source. TFD (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD: I find Sparrow published in a peer reviewed article to assert the U.S. federal republic includes five major islands. That’s the source I use, there is a database which includes five major islands, that’s the source I use.

You prefer to imagine a U.S. federal republic of 50 states, DC and Palmyra Atoll from a 1901 source, but no 21st century data bases follow your original research.

Now you propose I adopt a more absurd position than yours in a reductio ad absurdum to suppose the U.S. is 50 states, DC, Palmyra and Guantanamo. No data base reports Guantanamo for the are of the United States. You are so used to asserting things on WP without sources that you imagine I might. Forgive me if I politely decline. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This year, Sparrow presented a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeal saying that the courts had wrongly interpreted the law to say that the territories are not part of the U.S. (Leneuoti Tuaua v. USA) [20] It could be he will win and it will turn out the the U.S. government, congress and courts and have been wrong all along. In the meantime, we are not supposed to report minority opinions as facts. BTW, Sparrow says that Guananamo Bay is part of the U.S. You cannot accept Sparrow's reasoning for the other territories and reject it for Guantanamo. TFD (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sympathetic about the Tuaua suit, although the consequences might be that some local officials must be elected rather than serve in hereditary posts. It seems to me that as long as the hereditary supervisors remain trustworthy, they will receive the majority of the votes in their local areas. The object is to avoid succession by assassination. The court has refused the government petition to dismiss the case without a hearing.

The Tuaua suit is advocacy, not scholarship. Sparrow says Guantanamo Bay is a part of the United States empire as advocacy, but I have a peer reviewed reliable source from Sparrow to say the five major territories are a apart of the U.S. federal republic in the article “Empires external and internal…federalism in the United States”. The United States as a federal republic is the subject of the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD: You accept professor Sloane’s reasoning in a Senate hearing as an advocate below, must you now accept his published scholarly article declaring Puerto Rico is an “incorporated” territory as 21st century judiciary understands that term of art?

What does the U.S. Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol say? "U.S. Citizens … who travel directly between parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), without touching at a foreign port or place, are not required to present a valid U.S. Passport or U.S. Green Card" [21]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Before pasting the exact same thing three times (Either you think us idiots or you have a severe lack of knowing how to make a compelling argument) you should probably know that Customs and Border Patrol, as noted in the logo right at the top of their page, is part of DHS, not State. For the benefit of those here who don't wield a sledgehammer, I won't be pasting this next to the other mentions you made of this link on this page. They'll be able to find it. --Golbez (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are non-citizens/residents required to have passports, while US citizens/residents are advised to bring a government issued photo ID and a copy of birth certificate? You don't need a passport to go from B.C. to the Yukon Territory. TFD (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Golbez: Correct, thank you — Homeland Security as a secondary governmental source summarizing the law, scholarly sources to include the five major territories exist to show they are “parts of the United States", there are none to exclude but an unsourced footnote in a lone database, -- and lately in the argument, Senate advocacy testimony of a professor who three years later writes in a scholarly journal that Puerto Rico is "incorporated" as 21st century jurists understand that term of art.

• From the statute governing Homeland Security (14) The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States. (16)(A) The term ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United States [22]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What do non citizens/non-residents need a passport to travel from the U.S. to Puerto Rico, and citizens/residents are expected to carry government ID, if Puerto Rico is part of the U.S.? Does the U.S. have internal immigration checkpoints throughout the country, like Russia, China and North Korea? TFD (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

At various times, yes, the US has used internal citizenship checks. One of the more notable ones was between Florida and Key West - Conch Republic in 1982. The US also has to do this for travel between Washington and a small piece of the US which can only be reached via Canada by car. I am sure there are other such cases. Collect (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

TFD: I don't understand, do you mean like picture IDs at the airport? Welcome to the 21st century. There is no equivalency in your unsourced wp:fringe comparisons. Let's return to confirming that U.S. now includes five major territories in the 21st century.

• A 1999 Presidential Proclamation includes the five major territories, “in accordance with international law, …proclaim[ed] the extension of the contiguous zone of the United States of America, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands…”, p.163 [23]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• That proclamation is in the context of laws of the sea and the status of international waters, not necessarily the sovereignty of the land itself. Israel exercises control over the sea around Gaza, but has never annexed Gaza into Israel itself. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That might be so, except that the next sentence reads, “The contiguous zone of the United States extends to 24 miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law…” and those baselines of contiguous zone extend from the five major territories in accordance with international law, p.163 [24]. It does NOT read, "the U.S. seeks to control regions of water outside its baselines as Israel does those adjacent Gaza”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comic book section

Short with only one reference. This seems to give undue weight to a subject I do not believe is a major part of American culture needing to be summarized in this article. What do others think?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Likely better handled in the article Literature of the United States, which falls under Culture of the United States. No one I think doubts that they exist, but I think it would be good to debate whether the form of literature that are comic-books should be in this summary article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I took out the section itself and put the referenced content back to the media section that it was split from and removed the unreferenced material.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Lack of Mid- and Western references

I checked the archive and this subject has been touched upon, but not expressly discussed. But there seems to be a lack of mentions of Mid-west and Western based attributes. For example, there's no mention of Silicon Valley in the article, but yet the U.S. is credited as being the "primary developer and grower of genetically modified food" in the Science and Technology section. Speaking of food, there is mention that we produce a lot, but not what kinds or where in the country which I consider significant because the U.S. is the largest or primary producer of many items in the world. California's produce production alone over the last century and a half should be worth a sentence or a phrase at least especially since its so closely connected historically with the influx of millions of immigrants.

By the way, I'm not debating that the country was settled "west ward". Obviously efforts started in the East and moved West, but in this article the whole country should be addressed. Is anyone going to have a problem with additions like this? I'm striving for balance, not WP:POV or anything WP:UNDUE. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Rice fields on the West Coast near Sacramento California. The second largest producer of rice in America

Sounds reasonable. Do you have RS to suggest? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

One source in particular? No, but for those two examples I'd start with the respective articles, distill content down to concise statements, and use the corresponding RS. Part of what inspired my comments is one of the displays in the museum on Ellis Island that highlights agricultural based immigration. Maybe sources on subjects like that are a good place to start looking as well. Do you have any recommendations? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Agriculture, I've done a little work with corn belt but not much, and for Silicon Valley, nothing really. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. This is an excellent idea Scalhotrod. While Arknsas is the number one producer of rice in America, Sacramento is the number two producer. I thought about this when I flew over the rice fields out here in Sac. Got a pic if we need it! ;-)

OK, I'll start with a Silicon Valley mention and then move on to "Food" and "Agriculture". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I ended up restructuring most of the Sci & Tech section and adding a bit of content. I did remove one phrase about the development of jet assisted take off which just seemed out of place. I understand the significance of it, but as compared to the creation of the lightbulb and the transistor, it was an "odd duck". I think the flow and segue's are better now as well. The section starts with a historical perspective and then transitions to more modern age topics.

One thing that occurred to me is that the section lacks anything "medical" or "health science" related. The Health section states that the U.S. "developed or contributed significantly to 9 of the top 10 most important medical innovations since 1975", but does not say what they are. Anyone care to suggest any breakthroughs that are clearly U.S. in nature? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)