Talk:United States/Archive 92

This is an archive of past discussions about United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 85

←

Archive 90

US Wealth

The United States should be accepted as the Wealthiest country in the world, the links given provide evidence for this.Redom115 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Redom 115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Redom115. Thank you for engaging in discussion on this point. The article already says that the United States has the "largest share of global wealth concentrated in a single country". What is gained by adding "wealthiest" to this? Especially given that the two sources that you added earlier this month (Fortune and The Hindu) are both giving the word "wealthiest" precisely the same definition as already appears in the article here? It seems that you are insisting on additional verbiage that doesn't provide any additional information. Thanks again for engaging in discussion. I look forward to hearing your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I oppose Redom115's change, as the quoted source does not cite aggregate U.S. wealth ("wealthiest country on earth" having numerous criteria) but total wealth of individuals who hold U.S. citizenship. This editor's history of egregious off-topic POV edits (and WP admin warnings) on Wikipedia is a long one. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it provides additional information and extra emphasis because possessing the most wealth does indeed indicate the country is the wealthiest. Also the links state that it is the richest nation. Redom115 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC) I agree. As a Greek immigrant in Turkey who admires America, I can say that along with Turkey, America can put its place as the most wealthy nation on earth. Turkey was in the 1600s and now America is. Two Great Nations. I hope Turkey is secular again to regain Americas friendship. Its bad enough Turkey is involving itself in american politics like america did in the 80s to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 11:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Providing additional information" is your problem, Redom115. You contribute similar POV nonsense across Wikipedia, often with a short and flippant editing summary, and your additions consist mostly of original research (much of it off-topic). You don't seem to be a native speaker of English. Worse, you are edit warring rather often on WP, and you have repeatedly sought to revert consensus in this article. I have notified a WP admin. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about Mason.Jones, the links themselves state what I edited? Are you just blind or stubborn. Wikipedia is supposed to be about accuracy but instead all you want to do is to make as inaccurate as possible. How is it nonsense when it is true? Perhaps you are the one that is spouting nonsense. Redom115 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2017

Your history of admin. warnings, flippant edit summaries, and admin. block (appeal refused) this year are indication enough that you are as bad-faith as WP editors can be. Your puerile and illiterate edits on the "United States" article are proof of it. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all, back then I was new to Wikipedia. Second of all, what does that have to do with anything. I simply edited something that links themselves already told. Do you even read what I am saying? Redom115 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017

The United States has the most wealth in the world, not to mention if you look at its financial position, it should be regarded as such. Also if you look at economy subcategory, it uses the same link that says the US is the Wealthiest Country in the world Redom115 (talk • contribs) 3:31, 09 September 2017 (UTC)

The total wealth of a country is based on aggregate GDP, natural resources (incl. petroleum extraction and production), number of large corporations, total stock market value, among many other things. The sentence you refer to (it's more like an off-topic factoid that should be dropped entirely) and source cite total wealth held by individuals of U.S. nationality. Your remark (quote) "making it the wealthiest country in the world" (unquote) is weak, far-fetched, specious, overwrought, and classic POV analysis. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the wikipedia page of National Wealth it is the value of all natural resources, corporations, total stock market value etc. it is exactly all those things you just mentioned, so the US should be recognised as the wealthiest country in the world. It is the value of all types of assets and capital. It is not off-topic, it is entirely true. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You repeated pretty much what I just wrote. The factoid, however, says "Americans hold 33.2% of the total wealth in the world, the largest share of global wealth in a single country." It is thus both misleading and obtuse to append "making the United States the wealthiest country in the world." The wealth held by America's private citizens ("household wealth," per the Credit Suisse source) is quite a different kettle of fish -- one you still fail to comprehend, apparently. That is unfortunate. Mason.Jones (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I support NewYorkActuary and Mason Jones on this. The two other editor's behavior alone is concerning and seems to have more than some bias or, at the very least, un-encyclopedic tone.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How did I repeat what you said, the wealth held by private citizens is the national wealth, it is sum of all assets minus all the banalities. What's unfortunate is that you cannot see to understand what National Wealth actually means? Redom115 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

How is it biased when it is true, and the links themselves support this? Wikipedia is supposed to be all about accuracy. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sensing quite a lot of WP:IDHT here on the part of Redom115. The edit they propose is misleading and technically incorrect and should remain reverted. General Ization ^Talk 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity who is the 'they' you General Ization are referring too? Redom115 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The "they" is you. (I intentionally did not use "he" or "she" since I have no reason nor desire to know your gender.) General Ization ^Talk 01:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And "they" should not edit against consensus or they could be blocked again. Consensus on the talk page is clear.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, then how is my edit misleading and incorrect, prove to me with evidence that what I am editing is untrue because all the sites I have visited just confirm it is. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

How can I be blocked, I was simply asking a question. There are no grounds for that. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point, no one needs to prove anything to you. The consensus is clearly against the change, so the change should not be made on that basis alone. There has already been substantial effort to explain to you why your proposed changes are not appropriate, and my sense is that no one is interested in wasting more time trying to help you understand. General Ization ^Talk 16:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Mason Jones: Don't mean to get off topic here but was the cultural prominence removed from the article? Certainly our cultural influence is not declining and has nothing to do with the economic aspect. And I'm aware that our foot print on the world is shrinking, and that Trump is doing everything in his power to hasten our decline... but officially it hasn't ended yet. So what's your hurry to insinuate that aspect? Aren't you being just as irrational as remdom115? NocturnalDef (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not dispute America's preeminent role in many areas (including the economy), and I had no role in "cultural preeminence" or any other statement. I challenge, delete, or revert only when an edit is malicious, off-topic, POV, or infers facts that are nowhere in the footnoted source. The last three of those definitely applied here. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

But the USD is still the world's reverse currency? If we no longer support the world's economic backbone, then wouldn't we have lost that currency status unequivocally? NocturnalDef (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

And I believe your assessment on removing our cultural prominence is relevant as you agreed in solidarity with the other qualified editors. Is that not a contribution in itself to that particular edit? Seems to me that the lot of you have personal feelings towards America's role in the world to downplay it so prematurely, not to say that my personal feelings aren't the contrary because I would rather admit to having felt pride in global leadership than pretend not to in order to appear unbiased. NocturnalDef (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Regular editors here -- "qualified" or not -- don't weigh in, much less intervene, in every single matter of content and style in this article. Otherwise, we'd all be here 24/7. I didn't do that with cultural prominence, and won't enter the discussion of which major US metro areas should be listed in the lead-in. No default "solidarity" -- just other priorities. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Well in that case Mason, how would one get access to edit this article? Because personally, I feel the need to fill in the void if that would be applicable? NocturnalDef (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: "Last polity admitted"

The "last polity admitted" should be Hawaii. Northern Mariana Islands, as an "unincorporated territory," is not legally part of the U.S. --SchutteGod (not logged in) 70.181.168.53 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We had a very long and contentious debate as to whether or not the inhabited territories counted as part of the country; in its wisdom, consensus came to say "yes". --Golbez (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We decided that the Northern Mariana Islands are in fact "incorporated territory." It might however be better to replace the field with "last state(s) admitted." TFD (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We looked at the U.S. Constitution Article IV, Sec.3, Par. 2: The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States…so we concluded that the United States can posses territory.

We looked at scholarship that confirms the U.S. has always had territories apart from states but included in the United States from the time of the Articles of Confederation, whether they are held to be constitutionally incorporated or unincorporated, and that the Northern Marianas are now territory of the United States.

We looked at documents of the United States Government certifying to the United Nations that the Northern Marianas are under the jurisdiction of the United States and included in its geographical extent. Some editors support the Cuban Government contention that the U.S. cannot lawfully acquire territories, nor make their inhabitants its citizens, but the WP consensus did not adopt its view.

It is not better to adopt a Cuban Government contention which is not upheld in the United Nations, unsupported by international scholarship nor agreed to in the WP editor consensus. The geographical extent of the United States includes its territories, whether domestically classed as incorporated or unincorporated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In other words, consensus decided to look away from blatant synthesis and original research. But, consensus nonetheless. --Golbez (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

No scholarly sources could be found to support the Cuban Government's position that U.S. citizenship among its territories is unlawful. But as I remember, six reliable sources were found to support the contention that modern U.S. territories with native and naturalized U.S. citizens were included in the geographic extent of the United States. The editorial consensus did not find that the Cuban Government could arbitrarily devolve U.S. territory from the United States by Cuban proclamation alone.

The WP editorial consensus observed that the U.N. recognized that there is U.S. citizenship to be found among inhabitants in all the U.S. territories, as sourced. The U.S. government in the 21st century is including the islander U.S. citizens and native inhabitants of its territories with elective self-governance by their governors and legislatures under the equal protections of due process in local and U.S. courts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

So again, in other words, consensus decided to look away from blatant synthesis and original research, not to mention your deplorable attempt at accusing fellow editors of racism. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Pointing out the Supreme Court has had some racist views published among its opinions in holdings that were written over one hundred years prior to the year 2017 is not the same as a "deplorable attempt at accusing fellow editors of racism". Using evidence of racist views over one hundred years old to characterize ongoing political relationships in the 21st century is not good methodology --- because, things have changed since territorial governors and a majority of each territorial legislatures were Presidentially appointed, and local territorial courts were administered by the U.S. Army or Navy. That is all; bad methodology is not racism.

The United States is the continental United States, the island state of Hawaii, five insular territories, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and outlying minor possessions. There is no "blatant synthesis or original research" in referencing the U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80. It is just a reliable description of the geographical extent of the modern United States as sourced.

No one is racist who supposes that the Supreme Court at the turn of the 20th century would not allow islander inhabitants the right to vote for territorial governor. But now that they do, those WP editors who show that islanders vote for their governor in the 21st century are NOT calling anyone racist who happens to read constitutional scholars of century old Supreme Court cases. But WP editors must be alert to political developments as they unfold across each century --- just as a matter of good research methodology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I have just one question. Does the consensus stand?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- It would appear. No one's brought a challenge to it. --Golbez (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Among editors of these pages, some assert a flawed understanding of the requirements of U.S. citizenship which is based on the proposition that all men created equal, whether you like its embracing nationalism or not, whether you concede the desirability of that nation state's existence or not. There are those who do not.

A corollary is the position that islanders cannot allowed to be U.S. citizens and included in the geographical extent of that nation for the purposes of this article, even when they have been so included for half a century in the United States by law, customary practice and rulings by the highest courts of the land. This is bad research methodology, denying developments of the United States government among its inhabitants over the last century.

Editors here spent two years asserting the POV denying inclusion of brown and black skinned U.S. citizens and their territories within the geographical extent of the United States. Without any relevant scholarship to support their point of view, they failed to exclude them from this article on the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You really need to shut up. You do not get to explicitly call editors racist then say "I'm not calling them racist!" I don't care if you really think you aren't calling us racist, you absolutely are. Seriously, just stop. You're digging a hole you don't want to be trying to crawl out of. The discussion was over; you can be quiet now. This is a warning; if you continue doing this, I will bring this up with the wider community as being horribly toxic and anathema to civil discussion. --Golbez (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That's an inflammatory statement you should retract. TFD (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Very much agree. TheVirginiaHistorian please strike out or remove the statement. It has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline and has become disruptive misuse of the talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So again, in other words, consensus decided to look away from blatant synthesis and original research.--AlfaRocket (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Those of us who disagreed were outnumbered and out... ... outTVHed. --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus isn't always fair.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no "blatant synthesis and original research" to say that the U.S. Government is competent to specify its geographical extent as sourced, that its territorial inhabitants can be U.S. citizens, with human rights and self determination within republican forms of government under the U.S. Constitution. It has prevailed — now for fifty years, as reliably sourced. Deniers are not racists, but they do not recognize that a nation state can evolve in its conception and implementation of citizenship over the course of a century — to tend towards greater human rights and self determination for minority populations within its geographic extent.

I will not retract my statement that those are not racist who merely adopt a flawed methodology ignoring fifty years of political practice in the U.S. territories. The methodology is not racist, they are not racist. Though there may be editors who are misguided in a bad methodology, it takes more to be a racist than merely ignoring a century of continuing progress among minority populations towards increasing human rights and self determination in U.S. political history. Passively recounting racist judgments of 1917 without taking into account conditions in 2017 is not racism in 2017, it is bad methodology.

For racism to be apparent, there must be an active assertion of racial superiority or inferiority. The one hundred year-old Supreme Court cases asserted an inferiority among islanders — and that was tentatively put forward as U.S. Government policy only until Congress might determine otherwise. And the U.S. Congress has now since mid-20th century, determined otherwise in sustained legislation for half a century, a determination of islander native and naturalized U.S. citizenship along with their own elective governors and legislatures, now upheld by the federal courts — as reliably sourced.

Golbez and TFD have not asserted racial superiority nor inferiority for anyone, so they have not been racist. There is no cause for them to take offense to civil discussion of misguided methodology ignoring a century of political evolution and fifty years of political practice increasing human rights and self determination for islanders in territories within the existing U.S. geographic extent. Unsourced characterizations of reasoned arguments supported with reliable sources as "blatant synthesis and original research" or "inflammatory" is not conducive to civil discussion of the geographical extent of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You said, "at least one editor implied that the U.S. Government is incompetent to make brown-skinned people U.S. citizens." AFAIK, no one has ever said that. Congress has extended birthright citizenship to people born in four of the outlying territories and a congressional committee said it extends to Palmyra as well. And the United States has accepted the UN resolution on the right to self-determination. TFD (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Among editors of these pages, there seems to be a spectrum of ideological positions adverse to brown skinned peoples, from those who would deny their utility, to those who would deny their desirability, to those who would deny their humanity. But this is not racism,..." You. Need. To. Stop. You are not helping yourself with your archaic, cherry-picked definition of "racism". You do not get to accuse fellow editors of being "adverse to brown skinned peoples... deny[ing] their humanity" then turn around and say BUT I'M NOT CALLING YOU RACIST. You definitely are. You seem utterly incapable of not getting the last word in, and that is going to cause you to get blocked for lacking good faith, poisoning the discussion, and being generally toxic. --Golbez (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I truly regret causing you or any other editor any personal offense. I am sure you accept the possibility of the mutual incorporation of the United States and Northern Mariana Islands as a part of the geographical extent of the United States, based on the lawful actions of the duly elected representatives of their respective peoples. (Unlike the sourced Supreme Court justices of a century ago who did not, sources editors once used to suppose that present U.S. geographical extent could not include any of the five major territories.) Just as all editors can see that self determination is possible under the federal U.S. Constitution, "the CNMI [has] internal self-government under locally-adopted constitutions." p. 8, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997.

And you have persuaded me and I do now believe that no ulterior motive. whether racism or otherwise, restrains you or any other editor from accepting the natives of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands as holding full U.S. citizenship, since they are born within the United States, as reliably sourced: “A covenant between the United States and the Northern Marianas established the islands as a commonwealth under the sovereignty of the United States.” "People born in … the CNMI … are American citizens.” p. 8, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997.

So the Infobox should report that the CNMI is the last polity admitted to the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I would challenge the consensus, but not before issues with certain editors, vis a vis bad faith, morally shaming other editors, etc., are resolved. Can we please do something about this distraction? --SchutteGod (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As long as the comments remain, I have to agree. If the editor will not remove or strike out the comments I feel they should be hatted. Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not only does it violate personal attack, but the whole approach deflects from the discussion, which is what the info-box should say. Furthermore, TVH has added a lot of questionable original research and mistatements, which could lead to wasteful discussion. For example TVH says I do not accept that people in the CNMI are American citizens. In fact I said that the U.S. Congress had extended citizenship to them.[1] TFD (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's quite the straw man, as none of us have disputed that CNMI has birthright citizenship, along with the other populated territories save American Samoa, as that's an objective fact that doesn't require synthesis and original research. No one has disputed that, yet somehow we're racists who think brown people don't qualify to be Americans. --Golbez (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a tentative consensus to hat the comments if for no other reason than to stop discussing it. If editors wish to file an ANI report that's fine but if not...we really should just hat and move on.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I am accused of calling some unnamed individual a racist, at the time and subsequently I have explained that I did not intend that construction of my characterization of some opponents of the past three years to be deniers of U.S. citizenship among the inhabitants of all five major territories that are in the geographical extent of the United States. I have repeatedly posted how bad methodology ignoring fifty years of U.S. history with the five major territories is not racist, --- and reading or sourcing racist Supreme Court cases of one hundred years ago does not make one a racist.

The discussion of the Constitutional status of the territories is always fraught because the territories that are within the geographical extent of the United States are not judicially "incorporated" for limited purposes of domestic U.S. law, and that doctrine was promulgated in decisions that scholars such as Sanford Levinson have determined to be racist. TFD in this Talk section misrepresented the consensus as reversing Supreme Court doctrine, assuming domestically "unincorporated" territories were held at WP as "incorporated". They are not, the evidence adopted by the consensus showed something else again, that the geographic extent of the United States internationally included the five major territories and their populations, see Common Core Document of the United States of America, Report to the UN Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, sec. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. The territories are "foreign in a domestic sense" and "domestic in a foreign sense".

As I understand editors now confronting me, since my explanation that I had no intent of calling anyone a racist was not accepted by editors, I was asked to apologize. I apologized for any statement that might be taken as shaming any editor as racist. That apology was not found sufficient, so now at the request of TFD and Mark Miller, the identified passage is removed here at Talk. Again, I am sorry if I have made any mischaracterization of any editors over the past three years, and I deeply regret causing any disruption to these pages at the present time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So, now we can reexamine the “covenant” that the islander adults of their own free will entered into under United Nations auspices, joining the United States only after several decades of legal training and representative self-government under civilian courts of the U.S. Constitution.

Their American status now includes "citizenship of the soil" and disproportionate military service in wartime. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) should be characterized in the United States article info box as the “Last polity admitted”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You wrote, "At least one editor implied that the U.S. Government is incompetent to make brown-skinned people U.S. citizens." That is a clear accusation of racism. And it is false, because no editor has made that claim. TFD (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Very well, the offending passage is removed per your request. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So now all can agree, The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) should be characterized in the United States article info box as the “Last polity admitted”, given the sources available at Common Core Document of the United States of America, Report to the UN Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, sec. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87; and p. 8, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997 -- and given there are no applicable counter sources obtained to support any question of the legitimacy of the covenant of political union between CNMI and the US making natives of the CNMI "citizens of the soil" within the United States geographical extent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use any of those sources however particularly since the Congressional report on the insular territories specifically excludes them from being part of the United States. And please don't post lengthy passages from it and original research since I have read the report and read your arguments many, many times. TFD (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, you do not need the passages rehearsed, you know that the U.S. territories are a part of the United States for the purposes of geographical extent, and that is not original research. There are no sources to the contrary, other than Cuban, Iranian and Russian Government declamations in a U.N. subcommittee which have not gained traction in the U.N. General Assembly as a whole. These, the WP consensus have chosen to put aside as unreliable for the purposes of discussing U.S. geographical extent.

At the same time, you know the U.S. territories are not “part of the United States” for purposes of internal tariffs, which otherwise would be Constitutionally prohibited without the judicial legal fiction invented for the purpose, “incorporated” and “unincorporated”. It is a judicial distinction which does not have common usage internationally, and no application for discussion of the U.S. geographical extent relative to islander international status. U.S. islanders carry U.S. passports.

The U.S. territories are “foreign in a domestic sense” for the purposes of internal tariffs, which is what the Insular Cases are all about, charging an internal tariff on imports from territories onto the mainland. So the seven U.S. mainland families of the early 1900s sugar cartel did not suffer competition from sugar grown in the tropical U.S. territories back then. Now after one hundred years, the U.S. leaves some aspects of the Gilded Age behind, as WP editors must also in their treatment of the U.S. geographical extent when thinking internationally.

The U.S. Territories are “domestic in a foreign sense” relative to the international community, with U.S. Governors elected by U.S. territorial inhabitants with U.S. citizenship, they have self determination under laws of their freely elected territorial and U.S. representatives, they are protected by U.S. Courts. U.S. territories are “part of the United States” for citizenship of the soil, as you have admitted. The soil is U.S. soil, the citizens there are U.S. citizens. U.S. territories in the Pacific Ocean are not Chinese, as is asserted by other sources not included in the WP consensus.

Not a problem. For the purposes of geographical extent of the U.S. in this article, the CNMI is the last polity admitted into the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Be so kind as to point editors to the page in the GAO report, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, where they can read where it — referring to the U.S. territories — "specifically excludes them from being part of the United States” as you posted. I have conducted a term search, and so far, I cannot find the term “part of” used there in such a way.

Rather on page 24, it says "The Insular Cases use the term 'incorporated' to distinguish ... from 'unincorporated' territories” as a judicial distinction regarding constitutional rights --- not geographical extent --- And on page 45, we have "The Court held that the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution, at Article I, § 8, did not apply to unincorporated territories and, therefore, that different duties [taxes on their sugar, etc.] could be applied.”

"Different duties" under U.S. jurisdiction is not the same as geographical extent of the United States. If you cannot find where there is an explicit denial that U.S. territories are "a part of the United States” in its geographical extent on some referenced page, please remove your post that otherwise misrepresents the source, as a matter of wp: good faith on your part. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We have wasted more than enough time on this. It's up to you to point out where the report explicitly says the unincorporated territories are part of the U.S., not to post bad original research in walls of text. TFD (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You would overthrow a WP consensus built over three years with a fabrication that one of twenty sources supporting U.S. territory inclusion within the geographical extent of the United States, does “specifically" deny that the U.S. territories are "a part" of the U.S. But it does not, and you cannot show where it does, though you have been challenged to do so. U.S. territories are self-governing within U.S. territory under the federal U.S. Constitution by U.S. citizens, as reliably sourced.

As you have read before in the GAO report, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, p. 1: The Insular areas of the five Major Territories or the nine Minor territories are "the Territory or other Property” of the United States as are the states of the United States. page 29: Unincorporated territories of the United States have no more power “over commerce than states [of the United States] possess.” page 35: an unincorporated territory “has no inherit or independent sovereign power.”

It is uncollegial to accuse an editor of original research who uses direct quotes from sources. Besides unsourced assertions, fabrications, and ad hominem attacks, what would @The Four Deuces: like to contribute to this talk page? Source something verifiable for discussion, as your unsourced remarks have proven unreliable on this topic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's OR when none of the dozens of sources actually say what you want us to say but insist we must draw that conclusion. TFD (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The “territory of the United States” encompassing the U.S. Insular Areas in the GAO Report on page 1 means they are included within the geographic extent of the United States. We can quote without ellipses, “The Insular Areas are territory of the United States.” In the Common Core Report to the United Nations by the USG, it says on page 8 that the legal structure of the U.S. is "a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions.” The District of Columbia is constitutionally a U.S. territory as are five others self-governing commonwealths and territories in the Common Core report. That is what the article intro says, as sourced.

There is no "conclusion" required by the reader in consulting either reliable source to recognize that U.S. Insular areas are constitutionally within the territory and legal structure of the modern United States. Nowhere does any reliable source claim that DC and the five Major Territories are not a part of the United States geographical extent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Again that is your personal interpretation not found in the source. TFD (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, you can offer nothing but personal attack, misrepresentation, fabrication and unsourced assertion to deny U.S. insular areas are in the U.S. geographical extent. Here are two more direct quotes from U.S.G. and scholarly sources that also do not require editor personal interpretation and are also not original research:

“Parts of the United States [include] Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)” as defined by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Center, updated 02/24/2017.

The geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic is found in United States Practice in International Law, Volume 1, 1999-2001, page 163, in a Presidential Proclamation that the contiguous zone of the United States of America “in accordance with international law”, includes “the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands . . .” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You brought up these quotes before so if you want a reply I suggest you search the archives. TFD (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There was no answer from a reliable source made then, and there is none that can be made now, is there — only your discredited fabrication that a GAO Report “specifically” denies what it directly asserts on page 1, that U.S. insular areas are “territory . . . of the United States." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop fabricating what I said. I said they are territories of the United States. TFD (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, not only have you no reliable sources to justify your objection to the CNMI as a part of the geographic extent of the modern U.S — when you did read a verifiable source, you fabricated a misrepresentation, "the Congressional report on the insular territories specifically excludes them from being part of the United States.". But all can see it says that they ARE territories of the U.S. and a part of its geographical extent; the Supreme Court ruling that they are not sovereign alien states is referenced in the GAO Report, p. 26.

NO WHERE does the report say that they are not a part of the United States as you assert in your original research based on misrepresentations that require editors to leap to a conclusion to conflate the Supreme Court allowing domestic tariffs with their prohibiting Congressionally enacted geographic extent of the United States -- no reliable source says that the Supreme Court does any such thing; no acceptable source says what you want it to say, so you persist in offering no verifiable sources to back up your POV assertions.

And U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Center, says that the U.S. territories ARE "Parts of the United States [including] Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)”. -- which you dismiss with a misrepresenting reference to the archives — but it is the point of this talk section which you continue to post with unsourced objections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I already explained to you why your sources do not support your claims and why your synthesis is faulty. You should remember it. It's in the archives. If any other editors want me to explain this I will, but I have wasted enough time discussing this with you. TFD (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The U.S. Customs source that names the “parts of the United States” does support the WP consensus including U.S. insular areas as "parts of the United States", which you deny without supporting sources. You make no reasoning explanation you merely make unsupported claims. You mislead when you say you concede that U.S. insular areas are “U.S. territories” when you continue to deny that U.S. territories are U.S. territory within its geographic extent — as I have verifiably sourced in the GAO Report and in the USG Common Core Report to the U.N.

You have made no explanation of how “part of” as a direct source quote does not support “part of” in the article narrative, or that “U.S. contiguous zone” does not mean “U.S. geographic area” or “territory of the U.S." does not mean "U.S. geographical extent”. These are not synthesis, you are simply asserting another unsourced fabricated claim. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, already replied to you - it's in the archives. TFD (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

There was no reliable counter-source then, there is no reliable counter-source now — Only clever blogging with unsubstantiated assertions, just as you exhibit here now.

As you may recall from the archives, since WWII the U.S. geographical extent includes its populated insular territory with mutual political union and local self-governance by U.S. citizens under the protection of federal courts — as provided for by Congressional statutes that supersede the Supreme Court Insular Cases of a century ago. Territories enjoy all fundamental Constitutional rights excepting a few instances such the Uniformity Clause prohibiting internal tariffs. In the archives, there is some unsourced blogging to the effect that the lack of internal tariffs is the same as the geographical extent of a nation-state in the international community. That requires leaping to a conclusion unsubstantiated in the literature on U.S. geographical extent. No reliable source made any such connection, so the unsourced blogging was not accepted as authoritative by the WP consensus.

While they are within the geographical extent of the United States, the U.S. territories do not have the Constitutional standing of U.S. states. But even so, territories have always been a part of the United States, since before the Constitution in the Old Northwest Territory, as sourced, without any counter source being submitted for discussion, just as there is none now — only clever blogging in reply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating. Question: if I wanted to seek consensus on TFD's suggestion that the field in question be changed to "last state admitted," how would I go about doing so? Is there a specific template I need to use, or can I just ask that users start posting their votes? --SchutteGod {not logged in} 70.181.168.53 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So, at wp:consensus, we have "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution."

I take it that "compromise" is what you intend TFDs language for latest "state" versus latest "polity" to be. The problem you must face head on is that there are no reliable sources of modern scholarship to support excluding U.S. territories in the 21st century from the geographical extent of the United States from an international perspective. "Common sense" is not arcane POV references to internal tariff policies of judicial fiat unsupported by any Congressional legislation, and in any case, superseded by subsequent legislation.

There are sources that modern U.S. territories are judicially "unincorportated" as a matter of constitutional law for the purposes of domestic internal tariffs, and the Supreme Court once characterized them one hundred years ago as "savages" who were at that time deemed "dangerous to Anglo-Saxon institutions" --- but now after fifty years of post-WWII custom and law in American self government, U.S. territories are treated as a part of the geographical extent of the United States for the common sense purposes of international law, as sourced in this discussion. That is, as a generally accepted matter, Puerto Rico is not Cuba's and Guam is not China's, despite fringe scholarship outside the U.S. mainstream.

There are no contrary sources addressing the geographical extent of the U.S. to exclude U.S. territories as a matter of international law, only unsourced editor POV asserting a domestic point, that Congress has not done now what the Supreme Court refused to do a century ago: extend fundamental Constitutional guarantees for personal liberty and democratic republican government to islanders as U.S. citizens -- excepting your Gilded Age internal tariffs to support mainland sugar trusts, which is a matter of utter irrelevance as it relates to international practice today --- and WP editors recognizing the geographical extent of the U.S. for the purposes of an internationally read encyclopedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

One wonders that if your position was so ironclad then why do you feel the need to build such feeble strawmen like "Guam is not China's?" You say "fringe scholarship" but I'm unable to find any scholarship, at all, that states China has any claim, legal or otherwise, to Guam. Same with Puerto Rico and Cuba, but Guam as Chinese is particularly egregious. From what I can tell, the only person who's ever suggested that anyone thinks Guam is China's is you. --Golbez (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It is a clever post to assert — without sources — that the sourced position including territories is made up of straw men. But there are still no reliable sources offered to exclude U.S. territories from U.S. geographical extent by international law.

There is only an archive of tortured misapplications of one hundred year old rulings about internal tariffs domestic within the United States — claiming that they have external application in international law in a way so as to prevent the United States from acquiring territory to add to its geographical extent. That is a leap found in no mainstream U. S. scholarship. Those Insular Case rulings do not prohibit U.S. territorial expansion, as sourced here in this Talk section and in the archives, — and opponents have no counter-source on the subject of geographical extent of the modern U.S., either here or in the archives. The WP standard is "preponderance of sources", yet there is not yet one to exclude territories from modern U.S. geographical extent.

Internationally as sourced, the U.S. territories are considered a part of the geographical extent of the modern United States. They have no international sovereignty themselves as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. They are not recognized in the international community as belonging to any other nation. The question is What do sources and common sense say -- within an international context -- is the U.S. geographical extent for use in an internationally read encyclopedia. The answer does not lie in parsing domestic U.S. internal tariff regulation from a century ago. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

TVH, you may be confusing Puerto Rico with Guantanamo Bay. Cuba claims sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay, but no other U.S. territories. TFD (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

More clever straw man posting. Guantanamo U.S. Naval Station is leased from the Cuban Government, it is not a U.S. territory organized by the U.S. Congress with self governing elective government. Nowhere is there a reliable source to support Wikipedia editors in excluding any U.S. territory from the international geographical extent of the U.S. for the purposes of this article, only the unsourced editor misapplication of "unincorporated", a judicial term invented for the purpose of U.S. domestic internal tariffs one hundred years ago, as sourced.

Whereas in the GAO Report it explains U.S. territories are "territory" of the United States, and at the U.S. Customs source, it defines U.S. territories including CNMI Northern Marianas as "part of" the United States, and at United States Practice in International Law, a Presidential Proclamation confirms that the U.S. territories are in a "contiguous zone of the United States" of America "in accordance with international law”, including the Northern Marianas CNMI -- but not Guantanamo. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you say that Cuba claims Puerto Rico? TFD (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

More clever straw man misrepresentation, and still no supporting sources to exclude CNMI Northern Marianas from the geographic extent of the U.S.: I never said Cuba claims Puerto Rico, I said, Puerto Rico is not Cuban, because some scholarship out of the U.S. mainstream asserts a common pre-Columbian ethnic tie between Puerto Rico and Cuba, suggesting an indigenous claim for modern political unity.

Though Castro called Cuba and Puerto Rico “two wings of the same bird”, so as to imply some sort of organic connection between the Caribbean islands exists other than the self-governing United States territory that is Puerto Rico as a part of the United States constitutional make-up, as sourced at the U.S. Government’s Common Core Document to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You said, "Puerto Rico is not Cuba's," which appeared to be an assertion that Cuba claimed sovereignty over Puerto Rico. There is in fact an historic connection between Cuba and Puerto Rico. TFD (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so for your latest rabbit trail, regardless of the pre-Columbian ethnic histories of the Caribbean, the sovereignty of the people belongs to the living. Modern Puerto Ricans have chosen to be within the United States repeatedly in the twentieth century post World War II by large margins, and the U.S. Congress has reciprocated by extending the Constitution there and organized a constitutionally self-governing territory within the U.S. as referenced in the U.S.G. Common Core Document with many of the characteristics of states, more so than had been enjoyed in U.S. territories of the 19th century.

For this Talk discussion of CNMI Northern Marianas as the latest polity to join the United States in the article Infobox, how about coming up with a reliable source for your POV that modern U.S. territories are not within the geographic extent of the United States? How about apologizing for asserting the arcane judicial term "unincorporated" applies to anything now but domestic internal tariffs as explained in the GAO Report on the Constitutional status of Insular Areas, which you claim to have read?

But just as before, there is neither mainstream scholarship to support your unsourced assertion regarding U.S. geographical extent, nor apology for misrepresenting verifiable sources, even though this thread is now some fifty days duration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Who said Guam belongs to China? --Golbez (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Guam is a part of the United States geographical extent, as sourced. The discussion of China’s perimeter of “offshore defense” including Guam is found in foreign affairs and military journals, typically quoting Chinese naval authorities in their official journals over the last decade. For instance, as reported in a recently Googled Defense Analysts Consortium article and map, "the Chinese defensive perimeter is conceived to include two island chains. "The 'second island chain' comprises the Bonins, the Marianas, Guam, and the Palau archipelago.”

U.S. territories are within the geographical extent of the U.S., they are not sovereign, and they belong to no other country. We await the apology from TFD for his misrepresentation of verifiable sources related to the subject of this string, the geographical extent of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So your source that someone thinks China claims Guam is a three year Wordpress blog with the sentence, "The first chain stretches from the Aleutians to the Kurils, the Japanese archipelago, the Ryukyus, Taiwan, the Philippine archipelago, and the Greater Sunda Islands. The “second island chain” comprises the Bonins, the Marianas, Guam, and the Palau archipelago." So, to reiterate: Your only source that thinks China claims Guam also thinks China claims Japan, the Philippines, and much of Indonesia. And this was considered a valid source by you why? (Note: None of us think China claims Guam. None. Whatsoever. The reason I bring this up is you brought that up as one of many reasons we're supposed to agree with you, and it's such absolute bullshit that it must be called out. If you can't argue in an honest fashion then don't do it at all. Especially since you already won. This is almost a fun game for us - all we need to do is say "nah" and you will spend far too much time on several paragraphs repeating your exact same argument. Then we say "but nah" and you do it again, as if you think we actually care.) --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian, I don't understand your reason for mentioning that Guam doesn't belong to China or Puerto Rico doesn't belong to Cuba. No one seems to be arguing that they do. It seems like you are introducing topics into the discussion that have absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed. ~ GB fan 15:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I’m trying to find common ground, as sourced with reliable mainstream references. Read the third paragraph in Friday’s post, There are sources that modern U.S. territories are judicially "unincorportated" as a matter of constitutional law for the purposes of domestic internal tariffs, and the Supreme Court once characterized them one hundred years ago as "savages" who were at that time deemed "dangerous to Anglo-Saxon institutions" --- but now after fifty years of post-WWII custom and law in American self government, U.S. territories are treated as a part of the geographical extent of the United States for the common sense purposes of international law, as sourced in this discussion. That is, as a generally accepted matter, Puerto Rico is not Cuba's and Guam is not China's, despite fringe scholarship outside the U.S. mainstream. Golbez and TFD seem to agree with at least part of my Friday’s post — which is progress instead of unsourced posts denying every point made.

As a matter of good faith, WP editors are to be bound by the preponderance of evidence found in reliable scholarly sources for contributions to an online encyclopedia with an international readership. So the points of discussion relate to the following:

a) internationally, U.S. territories do not belong to any other nation, now stipulated in the discussion as a starting point; b) U.S. territories and its states are not recognized as sovereign entities internationally, as sourced;

c) the judicial term “unincorporated” which once applied to U.S. territories for jurisdiction of federal courts, self-government and citizenship is superseded by Congressional statute, and now still applies to domestic U.S. internal tariffs, but not to the international U.S. geographical extent, as sourced; d) the U.S. Government does claim the U.S. territories as within its geographical extent internationally, as sourced;

therefore, e) Modern U.S. territories are within the geographical extent of the U.S. for the purposes of this article and its Infobox, including CNMI Northern Marianas.

— and there are no mainstream counter sources to support opposition to that conclusion to be found, as evidenced in this string. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

If that was a response to my post, I am no closer to understanding why you added that Guam doesn't belong to China or Puerto Rico doesn't belong to Cuba to the discussion. ~ GB fan 09:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Puerto Rico is not Cuba's and Guam is not China's, despite fringe scholarship outside the U.S. mainstream." What is this fringe scholarship that states Guam belongs to China? Or is a blog post from several years ago stating that it falls within a Chinese 'defense perimeter', along with Japan, the Philippines, and Indonesia, sufficient for you to say that someone thinks "Guam belongs to China"? If there's more than just that, presumably you can source it. Otherwise, what's the point of saying it exists? --Golbez (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:GB fan, As my post explained, "I am trying to find common ground". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, to me this makes no sense, you are trying to find common ground on something that was never in dispute and you are the only one to have said it? ~ GB fan 17:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Golbez, You seem perplexed that you and I are agreed on something. How are U.S. territories classified, where do they belong in a WP article about the U.S. that concedes the modern existence of an international order of nation states? U.S. territories belong to no other country than the U.S., there is no responsible counter claim by any another nation, to that we are agreed. They are not sovereign, and the U.N. no longer holds any of them in trusteeship. They are to be reported in this article as within the geographic extent of the United States nation state, as sourced. --- And therefore, CNMI Northern Marianas is the last polity admitted into the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

What is this fringe scholarship that states Guam belongs to China? You used the existence as such to compare against your position, so surely you should be able to produce it. --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

In the modern international system of nation states, a populated area may be sovereign, under U.N. trusteeship, or territory of a nation-state. You have stipulated with me that there is no foreign claim to U.S. territories on the basis of our common sense discussion.

That does not mean there there is no logical possibility of such a claim, there are some counter claims to unorganized U.S. territory, so that is a good starting point to persuade you that from an international perspective, U.S. territories are within the geographical extent of the U.S.

Still no source bolster any argument contrary to the conclusion that CMNI Northern Marianas are the last polity Constitutionally admitted to the U.S. geographical extent. Still no TFD apology for misrepresenting both verifiable sources supporting including U.S. territories and the WP consensus here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

If there is no fringe scholarship that states Guam belongs to China that you know of, then please say so. Otherwise, please link it. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason for me to apologize for accurately reflecting sources. Your latest argument seems to be that even though another party can claim part of the U.S., that does not mean it is not part of the U.S. China could claim Guam, therefore Guam is part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Golbez Thank you for stipulating with me that the Chinese have no legitimate claim on U.S. territories. I would be interested in your sources to that effect, as you seem to have some reservations about my most recent first page Google search, and I admire your extensive geographic knowledge as a mapper. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

User: The Four Deuces Yes, to the best of my knowledge, all participating editors in this string have stipulated that a) No other nation claims CNMI Northern Marianas other than the U.S. in the modern era; b) In the modern era, the native population of CNMI Northern Marianas is competent to act in its own self governance, and under U.N. auspices, they have mutually entered into a permanent political union with the U.S., as sourced in the archives; and c) The U.S. is competent to accept and has accepted the CNMI Northern Marianas into its U.S. geographical extent by Congressional statute, and as sourced in this string, and that geographical extent is confirmed by U.S. Presidential proclamation in the modern era, as sourced in this string.

That is all I meant so say. Indeed, with your direct encouragement, I have apologized for asserting anything otherwise might have occurred in these pages by any editor over the past three years. We are agreed, you make no argument and present no evidence to the contrary, I have apologized for asserting otherwise. The CNMI Northern Marianas is the last polity to enter the U.S. geographical extent for the purposes of this article on the modern era U.S., because we have discussed it in good faith with sources and applied common sense to reach a consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "geographic extent?" We all agree btw that the CNMI has entered into a political union with the U.S. TFD (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I use the term "geographical extent" of the U.S. in the modern post WWII era, to distinguish the subject under discussion from the judicial use of "unincorporated" taken from the one hundred year old Insular Cases which now apply to domestic U.S. internal tariffs. Without this judicial fiat, internal tariffs placed on U.S. territory goods would otherwise be prohibited by the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution. However, in the modern U.S. all fundamental rights of the Constitution have been extended in the U.S. territories and they are self-governing Constitutional U.S. territory as reported in the GAO Report on Insular Areas. Three reliable sources may suffice to illustrate "geographical extent" from 1999, 2012 and 2017:

In United States Practice in International Law, vol. 1, page 163, Presidential Proclamation of September 2, 1999, in accordance with international law . . . 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 Marianas Islands ...

At U.S. Common Core report to the U.N., September 12, 2012, under section B. Constitutional, political and legal structure of the [nation-] State, 1. (a) Type of government, page 10, paragraph 27. A significant number of United States citizens and/or nationals live in areas outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands ...

From the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Center, updated February 24, 2017, Parts of the United States [include] Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a definition of "geographical extent?" TFD (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Three sourced definitions of “geographical extent” may suffice --- note that there is no distinction in this usage between the District of Columbia and CNMI Northern Marianas as they are both within the U.S. "geographical extent".

Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l). "The 'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace."</ref>

Glossary for United.States, page 245 “The term 'United States’ means, when used in a geographical sense, the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories and possessions of the United States.”

From the statute governing Homeland Security (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 .

Scholars also use other terms to include the five major U.S. territories as within the United States, such as the U.S. “encompasses” them (G. Alan Tarr, 2005), the U.S. is “composed of” them (Ellis Katz, 2006), and they are “a part of” the U.S. (Jon M Van Dyke, 1992). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

TVH I didn't "stipulate with you" that the Chinese have no legitimate claim to Guam; I'm saying, there's no claim at all, legitimate or otherwise. No one, from what I can tell, thinks China claims Guam, so why you would use that as an example of "fringe scholarship" leads me to think you made it up to bolster your claim. --Golbez (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Golbez You are quibbling over whether you can provide better mapping sources to refute claims by non-U.S. actors to U.S. territory in the 21st century Pacific. I concede that you can; I have shared one fringe source that you have agreed is fringe reporting a Chinese Navy map at Defense Analysts Consortium article and map. Here is another that I believe we can agree is fringe: Gavin Menzies chronicling Chinese claims to many Western Pacific islands by right of 15th century discovery in his best seller, 1421: The Year China Discovered America. As I said before, In the modern international system of nation states, a populated area may be sovereign, under U.N. trusteeship, or territory of a nation-state (logically, U.S. or non-U.S). You have stipulated with me that there is no foreign claim to U.S. territories on the basis of our common sense discussion. That does not mean there there is no logical possibility of such a claim, there are some counter claims to unorganized U.S. territory. --- so that is a good starting point of agreement to discuss, that from an international perspective, U.S. territories are within the geographical extent of the U.S.}} TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this will help establish common ground, in the Chinese U.N. Common Core Report to the Commission of Human Rights in 2010, Guam is no where mentioned, whereas in the [Common Core Document of the same format for the U.S.G., Guam is explicitly named as a part of the Constitutional fabric of the United States nation State, that is, Guam (and CNMI Northern Marianas) is within its geographical extent, or in other words, they are "a part of" the U.S., as U.S. Customs and reliable scholarship put it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In your reply you have been either unable or unwilling to provide a definition of "geographic extent." I guess your latest argument is that because Guam is not part of China, it must be part of the United States, even though the U.S. report you provide says that Guam is not part of the U.S. Good thing it doesn't mention France or we would have to incorporate them into the country as well. TFD (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

TVH, the thing is, if I'm understanding it correctly, that Wordpress blog doesn't say China claims Guam. It mentions Guam being part of a Chinese defense perimeter, which is perfectly logical - the United States had the same feeling about western Europe during the Cold War, and Canada now, and the allies about the GIUK gap in World War 2, or the U.S. with Japan wrt the Soviets and China, or even the Cuban blockade line during the missile crisis. So again, this isn't about "mapping," this is about you making up something to bolster your position. Why you simply don't discard it from your suite of copying and pasting, I do not know.

I wonder if this is far too trivial an issue to focus on, but then again, it's costing you far more effort than it does me, so it's up to you. --Golbez (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Golbez Okay. If you can accept the Chinese Common Core Report to the U.N. on its Constitutional extent that does not mention Guam, CMNI Northern Marianas and American Samoa, can you accept the United States Government’s Common Core Report to the U.N. on its constitutional extent including Guam, CMNI Northern Marianas and American Samoa for purposes of discussion here about the geographical extent of the United States? If not, why not? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about me accepting anything. You want me to "accept" a report that says China doesn't claim Guam, while saying that there's "fringe scholarship" which you can't reveal that thinks Guam belongs to China? This isn't about me accepting anything at all, and I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of thinking in any way that I agree with you, whether or not I actually do. I'm keeping this on point - that you made up something to further your agenda. "Some people say Guam belongs to China. This is a fringe position and we should reject it!" is as blatant a straw man as I've ever seen. Am I misunderstanding your purposes to bringing up these supposed China-owns-Guam and Cuba-owns-PR fringe theories? --Golbez (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The idea is to get you to think in an international context with the modern U.S. territories "a part of" the U.S. extent in a "geographical sense", rather than narrow-gauge argot within U.S. domestic judicial taxation policy asserting "unincorporation" one hundred years ago that then denied protections of the U.S. Constitution, self-governance and U.S. citizenship, all of which has been superseded by modern Congressional statute. You seem to confuse the messenger of fringe sources with the message, so I will drop references to a particular country as a logical example to say, There are no sourced claims by any foreign country on the five Major U.S. territories identified in our discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces WP editor good faith requires that you read the posts of others with a measure of common sense. I have provided U.S.G. and scholarly sources to include U.S. territories within the United States. The GAO Report you refer to explicitly says that the Major U.S. territories are “territory” of the United States. It does not say they are NOT “a part of” of the U.S. geographically, and that is verifiable with a word search at the link provided.

You have no reliable source to exclude them, only your own unsupported misinterpretation of judicial “unincorporation” which now applies domestically to internal tariffs, since Congress has extended the Constitution, self-government and U.S. citizenship to territories that were once denied them by the Insular Cases one hundred years ago. That does not contradict the extent of the United States in a “geographical sense” internationally, “composed” of territories that are “a part of” the U.S., as sourced with direct quotes with verifiable links. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the unincorporated territories are territories of the United States but whether they have been incorporated into the United States. Virginia for example was a territory of the England but was never incorporated into England. The difference is that the Constitution applies in full to incorporate territories, but only in part to unincorporated ones. TFD (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

U.S. territories are of course incorporated in the U.S. international extent in a “geographical sense” as sourced. As soon as you use judicial “unincorporated” descriptor outside of quotes, you are asserting a common sense meaning to the arcane legal construct for domestic internal tariffs that does NOT apply to the extent of the United States in a geographical sense, which instead includes the five Major territories, as sourced.

I have sourced that U.S. territories as explicitly enumerated in direct, verifiable quotes, are “a part of” the United States in a “geographic sense” both in U.S.G. and scholarly sources. You have not supplied any source to make the leap from court room domestic taxation policy to generally accepted international usage of what the U.S.G. Common Core Report to the U.N. says, including the five Major Territories by name.

Virginia’s colonial seal has it the “Fourth Realm” of Great Britain, along with England, Wales and Scotland. In 1766, Richard Bland asserted equal rights for Virginians in Parliament as Englishmen, denying the legitimacy of direct imperial rule by the Crown. Since the political union confirmed in mutual U.S. territorial referendums and Congressional statute, U.S. territories have representation in the U.S. Congress with floor privileges and voting in committees, something akin to what Benjamin Franklin advocated for the three or four American colonies he represented to Parliament as an agent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Kind of off topic, but my understanding is that since Wales has always been considered part of the Kingdom of England, the three other realms would have been Great Britain, Ireland, and France (I found one source saying that prior to the merger, the five realms were England, Scotland, Ireland, France, and Virginia.) --Golbez (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the collegial note on the realms of British monarchy before Great Britain's union. I’m still working on catching up on my 1500s English history. I am deeply grateful that you would stipulate Virginia was a realm equal to Scotland.

In the 1600a, the Scots and Scotch-Irish were the largest non-English minority in early Virginia migration. The Scotch-Irish — who were Scots who had been a part of British colonization of Ireland — settled on the interior frontiers; they called the Native Americans “wild Irish” and became the principle militias in Indian fighting “marches” as they were called.

Because self-funded parishes had to be established before county governance, some Piedmont and Valley counties were incorporated by the General Assembly allowing Scotch-Irish Presbyterians to be counted as Church of England vestry. Virginia at first evolved into a kind of limited religious tolerance for Presbyterians and then Methodists, though not religious freedom for Baptists, German Lutherans, Anabaptists and Great Awakening evangelicals. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution has never applied in totality to its territories as it does to states. TFD has no source to substantial his claim that they should. It does not do so now in the U.S. territory of the District of Columbia. DC and the five major territories have Article II federal courts; states have Article III federal courts. In the U.S.G. Common Core Report to the U.N., there is no distinction made between DC and the five Major Territories enumerated as a part of the constitutional make up of the U.S. as a nation State in the international community --- in a "geographical sense", as sourced with direct quotes and linked citations from U.S.G. and scholars.

Even the Constitutional Amendment to allow DC presidential electors limits it to three — the smallest number of electors allowed to states — even though DC is larger in population than the smallest states and might proportionately qualify for four electors in the future — and two representatives rather than one territorial delegate — were it a state. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

According to the Office of Insular Affairs, in incorporated territories "Congress has applied the full corpus of the United States Constitution as it applies in the several States." An unincorporated territory is defined as "A United States insular area in which the United States Congress has determined that only selected parts of the United States Constitution apply."[2] The constitution does not provide for congressmen for territories. Congress can decide whether or not people born in Puerto Rico or American Samoa are citizens. It cannot determine whether people born on Palmyra (an incorporated territory) are citizens. They are because the 14th amendment applies to the entire country. TFD (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The definitions on the Office of Insular Affairs blog are good as far as they go. The more authoritative source of the GAO Report to Congress on the U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution, Congress and Courts have explicitly applied some provisions to the 4 million citizens in Insular Areas of the United States (p. 1). Since the Insular Cases one hundred years ago, the U.S. Constitution's fundamental rights in the Constitution now apply (p. 7), and once the Constitution is extended to a territory, its coverage is “irrevocable”. (p. 10)

In the modern era, the kinds of rights not extended to residents of the residents of the insular areas are related to the difference between territories and states; they include voting for President and electing a Representative (p. 9), and of course, the Insular Case Uniformity Clause permitting domestic U.S. internal tariffs on territories (p. 23). The kinds of rights once denied the judicially “unincorporated” territories now include protection of federal courts (p. 7), self-governance (p. 8), and delegate representation in Congress including the right to vote in committees (p 27).

These findings in the November 1997 GAO Report explaining the expansion of the Constitution to the Insular Areas under the Territorial Clause are confirmed in the U.S.G. Common Core Report to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights of December 2011, that the U.S. territories are within the Constitutional “structure" of the United States as a nation “State” in the international community (p. 8). Scholars of international affairs confirm that the U.S. “encompasses” the five Major Territories (G. Alan Tarr, 2005), the U.S. is “composed of” them (Ellis Katz, 2006), and they are “a part of” the U.S. (Jon M Van Dyke, 1992). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Why does the Uniformity Clause apply to Palmyra but no other territories? TFD (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This is off topic in your POV effort to artificially truncate the extent of the U.S. in a “geographic sense" internationally — Palmyra is not under discussion. But it does seem somehow related to your argument based on American judicial assessments in the 1900s one-hundred years ago. They characterized distinctions in self governing capacity among ruling elites and natives in Hawaii (then including Palmyra) and Cuba, versus those of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The latter were initially denied protections of federal courts, self-governance or U.S. citizenship. In the modern era, those Constitutional elements are all Congressionally extended to the populations of U.S. territory. What is your point in recalling superseded judicial rulings?

Modern U.S. territories including DC and the five Major territories are specifically enumerated and reported by the U.S.G. as within the constitutional “structure” of the United States in the international community, as sourced. What is curious in this thread, is your reluctance to assert any support from scholars of international affairs for your separatist doctrine based on a domestic U.S. judicial doctrine. You have only unsourced assertions on your own authority concerning the modern extent of the U.S. in a “geographical sense” internationally. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Your reference to "once the Constitution is extended to a territory, its coverage is “irrevocable”" is about Palmyra, which is the only incorporated territory. According to the report, it is incorporated because it was part of the Hawaii territory which was incorporated by Congress. So the question is, why is Palmyra different if the the other territories have also been incorporated. TFD (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand the GAO report. The extension of the Constitution as “irrevocable” in the GAO Report, page 10, note 18 does not refer to uninhabited Palmyra, it refers to Downes v. Bidwell about Puerto Rican oranges sold in New York. As we learn at Downes v. Bidwell, the ruling held that “Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union.” — Territories do not attain all provisions of the Constitution as do states, but they are a part of the U.S. structure — and its international extent in a “geographical sense", as sourced in linked U.S.G. and scholarly references. You have only unsourced assertions of misinterpretation to deny including modern territories. Palmyra may be "unincorporated" since its separation from Hawaii at statehood (GAO Report, p. 7) -- nothing definitive yet.

The newly acquired territories were judicially “unincorporated” one hundred years ago — they were governed by presidentially appointed military officers, who in turn appointed half of the local advisory councils, administering justice under military courts — but only until Congress extended the Constitution under the Territorial Clause, — which it has done so now in fundamental respects, along with additional extensions by the federal courts. The territories judicially “unincorporated” always were only “foreign in a domestic sense” — the Supreme Court did not intend to limit Congressional authority to add territory to the constitutional and political structure of the United States internationally. Instead, judicially "unincorporated" territories are domestic in a foreign sense. They are included in the constitutional and political fabric of the United States nation State, as sourced by the U.S.G. and international affairs scholars. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Page 18 is about Palmyra. The reference to Downes v. Bidwell explains why D.C. is part of the U.S. and therefore the uniformity clause applies, just as it does in Palymyra, but not in Puerto Rico, because it is not part of the country. TFD (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

“Because it [Puerto Rico, the five Major territories] is not part of the country” — that is your unsourced leap from judicial “unincorporation” allowing internal tariffs domestically within the U.S. in modern territories — to assert a constitutional and political separation in this string with CNMI Northern Marianas which does not exist. But that POV of wiki-secession is not sustained by any scholar of international studies as the extent of the United States in a "geographical sense”.

For Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands Congressional statute has them a part of the U.S. in a "geographical sense" at least since 1952 when other territories then under mandate or trusteeship were defined as a “foreign state” for the international relations purposes of Immigration and Nationality.

Whereas on the other hand, the five Majors are enumerated in U.S.G. and scholarly sources linked to direct quotes for your benefit to show they are “a part of" the United States — along with more than the “preponderance” of evidence we have reviewed in the literature. If you would but read them rather than asserting your own unsourced authority. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you in your own words explain why internal tariffs are allowed for U.S. unincorporated territories but not for incorporated ones? TFD (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why again? That was one hundred years ago, before fundamental provisions of the Constitution were applied to Puerto Rico, or federal courts, elective self-governance, delegate representation in Congress, or statutes attesting to Guam and Puerto Rico as internationally within the U.S. in a “geographical sense” on the same constitutional basis as Alaska and Hawaii Territory — not in my own words, but reliably sourced with direct quote links.

In the 1990s, a Federal Court of Appeals ruled in Trailer Marine that the Commerce Clause in its "dormant state" does apply to PR, so in yet another way, the Insular Cases of one hundred years ago are superseded by statutes of Congress and federal Court rulings on them.

The Downes’ Insular Case phrasing, ”foreign in a domestic sense” means in the words of Roberto P. Aponte Toro, that “as far as its international personality goes, [Puerto Rico] was a part of the domestic sphere of the United States” (in Burnett “Foreign in a Domestic Sense” 2001, p. 253) — foreign in a domestic sense, domestic in a foreign sense. The foreign, international “geographical sense” of the United States that includes the modern U.S. territories is under discussion here. No reliable source of international affairs separates them, only unsourced POV editor assertion on your own authority, which you will not or cannot provide. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you were confusing the Commerce Clause with the Uniformity Clause, which does not apply and therefore Congress provides different tax and minimum wages to the external territories. It does not apply because it requires uniformity only "throughout the United States." But why in your own words would there be any difference at all between the treatment of incorporated and unincorporated territories? TFD (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an amusing perpetual motion machine you two have discovered, but seeing as how 1) neither of you will deign to let the other have the last word, 2) neither of you appear willing to be convinced, and 3) no one else is involved in this discussion about settled law, perhaps you could take this elsewhere instead of filling up the talk page with repeated statements? I'd apologize for getting this ball rolling but, nah. --Golbez (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Part of WP editor good faith requires TFD reading the court ruling with linked direct quotes noting that since 1952, Congress has held no distinction of internal tariffs to be determinative among judicially “incorporated” and “unincorporated” territories. All are a part of the “United States” in a “geographical sense" such as Alaska and Hawaii Territories (including Palmyra) versus U.S. territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for the international purposes of Immigration and Nationality. They are not "foreign states" as sourced. That should be persuasive versus a ruling on domestic U.S. internal tariffs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No, TFD is not required to do anything. But thanks for proving my point about being completely incapable of not having the last word. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing “settled law” sourced about the Insular Cases. They once totally excluded Constitutional provisions that now extend to the territories. They are superseded by Congress in all but — what have you, discriminatory application of SSI and AFDC?

Neither Congress nor scholars view the original intent of the Uniformity Clause as asserted in unsourced WP editor POV, --- nor the Insular Cases POV, whatever its remnants --- as applicable to the current mutual union formed by local referendums and U.S. statutes. Together they make U.S. territories within the international definition of the “United States” in a geographical sense, including CNMI Northern Marianas --- as referenced with reliable sources linked with direct quotes. And that is the standard to make a case here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I meant settled law on Wikipedia. We went through the arduous process, your side won. But thanks for proving my point about being completely incapable of not having the last word. --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

For ease of editor archival reference, here is a summary of this string’s new sourcing in our three-year survey of the literature on the United States as defined in a “geographical sense” including its territories:

The Downes’ Insular Case phrasing, ”foreign in a domestic sense” means in the words of Roberto P. Aponte Toro, that “as far as its international personality goes, [Puerto Rico] was a part of the domestic sphere of the United States” (in Burnett “Foreign in a Domestic Sense” 2001, p. 253) — foreign in a domestic sense, domestic in a foreign sense.

For both judicially “incorporated” domestic territories of Alaska, Hawaii, and judicially “unincorporated” domestic territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands — Congressional statute has them a part of the United States in a "geographical sense" at least since 1952 when other territories then under mandate or trusteeship were defined as a “foreign state” for the international relations purposes of Immigration and Nationality.

Parts of the United States [include] Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)” as defined by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Center, updated 02/24/2017.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Imperialism as form of government

Should we discuss American Imperialism in the context the American form of government? (As a significant minority view) There are many sources for adding this: [3] [4] [5]

Currently, imperialism is not mentioned once, and the quantity and quality of academic secondary sources available do seem to justify inclusion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Imperialism is merely a description of foreign politics. And since the specifics of foreign politics are not defined and limited by US Constitution nor even major Acts of Congress...one must assume that such politics vary across changes in POTUS and members of Congress as a reflection of American voters and business dynamics. Just like every other country (e.g. in the age of Viking raids and invasion the Scandinavian countries obvious had imperialist policies as well -- but that is irrelevant to their governments in the current century.)

Note also that technically the US Constitution was designed as an elected oligarchy, not a Democracy. Only since the advent of telegraph, radio, telephones and modern media has the national government become a true Democracy where the voters can assess the full range of issues and truly influence their Congressional representatives (and senatorial representatives) in a timely manner.

The original expectation was that voters simply trusted Congressional members to be of similar mind when new pressing issues or legislative proposals came up during Congressional session. There was some expectations by a few that all issues actually addressed would be old issues already debated for 20 years. But in fact no provision ever existed that required Congress to set up and limit its agenda months in advance of the next session so that the public could express itself to its representatives or make elections based on specific bills. Overall while some issues were known the actual agenda and debate of Congress has always been determined durng actual session. When Congress met not that many voters would be informed of all aspects of current issues and new legislative debate, let alone able to communicate in a timely manner to influence such debate.

And even today most communication and influence is NOT from individual voters or ad hoc voter petitions of the district -- but instead businesses and special interest groups who lobby ALL of US Congress even though their demographics are often concentrated in small areas. Not really very strong on the idea of X number of voters in a district having the exclusive attention of one House member or half of each state having the attention of one Senator...except at election time. Still slanted toward a federal oligarchy representing intermediate oligarchy committees formed around special interests either financial, political or ethno-political...with real individual voter opinions buried somewhere fairly distant if not actually on such a committee.

Overall I am saying the issue is way too complex to be accurately described in such simple polarizing terms as Democracy and Imperialism. Nice for academic foundation categories but fitting nothing in the real world. But since the article is primarily about describing the internal aspects of the US -- I suggest that foreign policies of the US be a very small sidebar. That sidebar should clearly divide into comments on current foreign policies and a very compressed and broad description of past foreign policies eras...with the normal references to a separate article for more detailed discussions of US foreign policy history. 70.114.136.69 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Since Imperialism has to do with empire building via annexing territory -- I think you have the wrong word. "Meddling in sovereign matters" is much more accurate.

It is worth noting that almost every country A does "meddling with the sovereign matters" of other countries where actions and conditions of a foreign country B have impacts on ambitions of country A. Usually those impacts are economic or political (i.e. indirect impact on relations economic, military, or political with country C). Given the size and diversity of the US economy it is not surprising that it meddles on a huge scale like Russia or China or the EU.

What makes the US, Russia, and terrorist group more irritating than that is that they also "meddle in sovereign matters" for purely ideological reasons often concentrating on the technicality of the rules over accomplishments and a benign relationship with the vast percentage of population. The US stands out above even terrorist groups because its ideologies are fractured and varied and quite often openly hypocritical.

When it comes right down to it, the US Democratic party does have ambitions of global domination initially ideological but eventually practical, believing that global power will coalesce around their elite intellectual oversight if only each country is allowed to democratically opt-in. That of course happening only after each country is trained in the politically correct (PC) values which will lead to global group think - synchronized of course via news media and well controlled Internet social media. Some problems like over-population and the accompanying rising starvation rates do affect the entire world in the 40-100 year range. So they are trying to force the issue on the assumption that theirs is the only solution. In the end, an Earth society like ants following queens commands - very democratic if you allow that the only original thinking is done by a very limited number of specialist at the top and everyone else "Elects" to follow (or are outcast or eaten by their peers). US Republicans still favor isolationism except when they want the lions share of multinational financial deals to flow to the US. Neither totally represents the US but population pressures increasingly favor the US Democrat thinking as nation governments worldwide face an increasing number of population related problems including the inability of competing ideologies to coexist when forced into elbow to elbow distances physically and in communications head space. Lots easier to tolerate a neighbor's conflicting values and ideas when there is at at least 1 day travel between you physically and by communications. Nowadays conflicting ideologies are just an Internet login away or drive to the nearest shopping center.

So the real question Wikipedia should answer about current US foreign policy of "meddling in sovereign matters" is "how does the US meddling differ from that of other countries in the world doing the same?" and perhaps ranking world countries by degree of meddling from extreme to none -- "where does the US rank in meddling compared to its peers?". I suspect that the US is not that far above normal when you adjust for geographical and economic size...except when you hit that ambition to form the core of world government from the US Democrats (liberal primarily in the scope of their inclusiveness of basic citizenship not their regulations for conformity). The other question possibly for another article should be "does increasing world crowding both physically and in the info-communication sphere leave room for old style sovereignty -- or is increased meddling, reduced sovereignty and increasingly conformity to a unified set of ideologies the inevitable price of freedom of reproduction?"

Sorry all my sources would be decades out of date. But somebody in the community should have a few sources that answer these more objective questions -- rather than purely flogging and bending facts to persuade people of the rightness of their specifically solutions. As an aside, I am of the opinion that the lasting happy solutions will not be the first solutions to reach a temporary peace. ANd the whole foreign policy mess makes me think colonizing Mars might be a wise investment for the human race.

70.114.136.69 (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Fear not, according to the editors here, the empire is kaput. We no longer have international influence - so these guys say. But Trump is rather convincing evidence to their argument, his whole isolationist policy standard. Embarrassing. NocturnalDef (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160516063650/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/Johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/651003.asp to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/Johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/651003.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://statisticstimes.com/economy/north-american-countries-by-gdp-per-capita.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150104033821/http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=476 to http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=476
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2013/03/overstating%20inequality%20costs%20winship/overstating%20inequality%20costs%20winship.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Articles/2013/03/overstating%20inequality%20costs%20winship/overstating%20inequality%20costs%20winship.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing came up on any of the links you've provided. What were you editing? NocturnalDef (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2017

This edit request to United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

209.129.208.101 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Incorrect Date in Reconstruction Era April 14th 1965 needs to be changed to April 14th 1865

Done Nihlus 22:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017

This edit request to United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "The latter lead to emergence" to "The latter led to emergence" Latitude42 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --Golbez (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)