This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 27.32.152.121 on 11:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC).
Existing consensus in favor of the text as it now stands. Unless a new consensus is built, current consensus must stand. See closing note in discussion section for more details. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I contend that the lead of the article contains quoted text that could be misinterpreted as a quote from the cited texts when it is not. I attempted to make an edit to the article to correct this but it was reverted. My opponent in the dispute has ignored this and claims that the text should remain because it's a quote even though it's not present (that I can see) in the source. S/he also claims that removing the quotes would put one particular disputed sentence into Wikipedia's voice. The sentence reads:
In line with HA's view of Christian teaching, HA regards heterosexuality as "the universal creation-norm" and homosexuality as "sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ."
I believe the quote "sexual brokenness that may be healed through faith in Jesus Christ." should be reduced so the quotes only surround "sexual brokenness" as that is the only part actually quoted. My opponent believes this would constitute a violation of NPOV, but the sentence in question is almost identical to the correct sentence given in the first example under "Explanation of the neutral point of view" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. The neutral example given ("genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil") does not quote the sentence to make it neutral.
Secondly, I contend that the phrase "renounce homosexuality" does not need to be quoted. I looked up the word renounce (2nd def, Refuse to recognize or abide by any longer) and I believe this describes the situation neutrally.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have made an edit and had it reverted, moved the discussion to the talk page and replied several times. No other steps.
How do you think we can help?
I'd like an editor to arbitrate. I can't believe this user thinks I am wrong when the stated example so clearly matches the text in this article.
Opening comments by 27.32.152.121
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Please forgive me. I'm inexperienced in editing Wikipedia and didn't completely understand what should/shouldn't be contained in the Dispute Overview section. I am happy for my comments in that section to constitute my opening comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.152.121 (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Jenova20
Firstly, i hate being at DRN and i think this could have been better solved by the anonymous editor getting a third opinion or taking this to the LGBT Wikiproject for a wider view.
Secondly I didn't revert this person and wanted that made clear. And i have spent two days talking to the editor in question now about this.
My view is that the mere 22 quoted words represent both the organizations mission statement and goals, without confusing them, misappropriating them, and without violating NPOV and WEIGHT pretty well, making clear that "pray away the gay" is not science, is not supported by science (in fact it's rejected by science as harmful), and is supported by this organization against the mainstream opinion that sexuality cannot be changed and attempts to do so are harmful. The lede is (entirely?) sourced because of the controversial nature of this and most of the quotes are from the organization themselves.
I completely disagree that "renounce homosexuality" should not be quoted since it cannot be renounced under the mainstream view since sexuality is not an addiction or habit and placing it in Wikipedia's voice is not appropriate. Renounce is their choice of words and their view.
I think i've responded to most of the issue there. Please let me know if i missed anything. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 12:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Quotation marks used around words or phrases to show that they are being used in an ironic manner or that the speaker does not agree with the words or concept are called scare quotes. The Wikipedia Manual of Style discourages their use in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on scare quotes also says (without citation, however) that "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion." Unless these two instances can be shown to be direct quotes, the quotation marks should be removed. If it is useful or necessary to show that these are questionable concepts promoted by the organization under discussion or to avoid any appearance that Wikipedia is promoting or concurring with those views, that should be made clear via words in the text accompanied by proper sourcing. If that makes the lede too long, involved, or complicated, then this point should probably be omitted from the lede altogether and discussed in the body of the article, but how and whether to do that (that is, describe it in words or remove it from the lede) is a discussion which ought to go back to the article talk page since it is not in dispute at this point. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Closing note: I have gone back and looked at the archived talk pages and discovered that this was the subject of an extensive discussion in July, 2012 which resulted in the current version of the text. In light of the fact that scare quotes are merely discouraged and not prohibited by MoS and the fact of the prior consensus discussion, then I believe that the Consensus policy puts the onus onto the IP editor in this case to obtain a new consensus via discussion before making this change and, failing that, that the current consensus must remain in place. DRN is not the place to attempt to do that. Discussion at the article page, at an appropriate Wiki project, and/or via a request for comments is the proper means of seeking a new consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mendaliv on 13:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC).
DRN generated some good discussion, and endorsements were made for multiple proposals. Discussion moved back to talk page. --Noleander (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Does the phrase "United States" also refer to territories such as Puerto Rico?
Some editors have argued yes, and that the United States article at present does not reflect this in its lede. Others argue no, or at least that the current article does not exclude the possibility. I have argued that the term is ambiguous and the sides should be equally addressed.
One problem that has come up is sourcing. My sources, admittedly, are legal encyclopedias and thus tertiary sources. One editor in favor of explicit inclusion of territories has provided sources that he argues support that contention, but which I believe either independently support the ambiguity of the term, or are primary sources being used to advance a synthetic position.
Another contention has been the appropriate application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Without straying into behavioral issues, it has been repeatedly argued that tertiary sources should not be used at all, that certain sources are or are not secondary/scholarly, that primary sources may be used to support the definition, what constitutes OR, what value judgments we may make about the validity of certain sources, and similar.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I got pulled in via a request at WP:EAR, where I volunteer. I came to Talk:United States and engaged in discussion. Upon realizing this issue had wider implications, I called on members of WP:USA to join, and started a discussion to standardize affected articles and to describe the ambiguity rather than attempting to resolve it. I believe the sheer volume of discussion, both prior to and in response to these attempts at resolution, is preventing participation by uninvolved editors.
How do you think we can help?
Keep things on topic and moving, break the deadlock, and move the participants towards hacking out a consensus.
Opening comments by Golbez
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
My personal stance has been, the incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy has been settled law, and absent a specific statement from Congress, the Executive, or a higher court, that remains how things are done. The U.S. consists of the incorporated territory of the fifty states, federal district, and Palmyra Atoll (so insignificant as to not warrant mention in the introduction).
However, throughout all this my concern has been less about the definition of the country (though I still disagree that we can unilaterally say the territories are now part of the country), and more about what impact that would have on the rest of the article, and other articles. For example, all of the stats in the infobox would have to be changed to accommodate the change in area and population. And all statistics and facts in the article itself would have to be checked: Does this change the population density? The crime rate? Are their unique aspects mentioned in geography and demographics? Furthermore, what impact would this have on Wikipedia at large? Would we have a situation where we are massively inconsistent, with this article reporting one area and other articles reporting another, or other articles talking about Puerto Rico as a possession whereas this one would now talk about it as integrated into the country? Would the articles on incorporated and unincorporated territories be updated to indicate that those terms no longer have meaning? Would the articles on the five territories in question be updated to reflect their "new" status? Has anyone even asked the talk pages of those articles how they feel about this?? Those who are for this change have denied any need to do this, let alone any willingness to perform it. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by TheVirginiaHistorian
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The view of a U.S. without territories echoes the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Editor synthesis of tertiary sources should be replaced by secondary scholarly or government sources as quoted. Contribution to the lead sentence sourced from the last twenty years should be admitted describing the U.S. federal republic as including 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories.
The U.S. is an internationally recognized nation-state with a constitutional tradition upholding basic human rights and self-determination in a federal constitutional republic. Scholar and government secondary sources show the U.S. territories of 2013 are “locally autonomous” with rights and privileges “equivalent to states” in the Union. The U.S.G. reports itself as today including 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories.
The constitutional practice of the U.S. since 1805 develops territory from “possession” with military governor to “unincorporated territory” with appointed governor without citizenship-of-the-soil, to “incorporated territory” of citizens with elected governors. Territories admitted as states in 1910 and 1960, AZ, NM, AK, HI as territories are surpassed in privileges for the five organized U.S. territories 2013: N. Marianas, Guam, Am. Samoa, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. As were the territories incorporated before them, they are incorporated in the union of U.S. federal constitutional republic.
There is no secondary source to classify U.S. territories of 2013 as “separate personalities”. WP articles should not source WP. Insular Cases are temporary judicial fiat to administer Spanish regions in 1901. Alaska was held “incorporated” in “Rassmussen”, because congressional intent was manifest with citizenship-of-the-soil, as is the case in all five organized U.S. territories but Samoa. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by The Four Deuces
There is a dispute about whether "and territories" should be added to the lead which currently says the U.S. "is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district." It is settled law from the Insular Cases that unincorporated territories of the United States are not part of the republic. It is the position of the U.S. government and congress that these territories are either separate states in free association with the U.S. or non-self governing territories. They are considered separate personalities under international law with the right to self-determination.["Study of W. Michael Reisman, Myers S. McDougal Professor of International Law, Yale Law School and Robert D. Sloane, Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law", U.S. Congress, 2006, pp. 120, 136, 149ff.[1]] TFD (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by RightCowLeftCoast
My summary of the discussion regarding the proposed changed to the lead can be found in this diff. Although there have been a few rough patches along the way during this discussion, it has been more or less cordial, IMHO. That being said, when editors have strong opinions one way or the other sometimes discussions can become contentious; however, compared to political discussions this discussion is rather mild, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
United States discussion
Hello. I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before we get into this too deep I have a question. Why is this not being handled per sources? Is it the belief that no secondary, reliable sources can be found and therefore the material is not verifiable? Or, is it the contention of editors that the limited sources that are being used at the moment are sufficiant?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to explain the sourcing issue a bit better:
With respect to the camp in favor of including the territories in the opening statement, the dispute has to do with whether the sources presented are (1) reliable sources for that particular claim, and (2) whether they actually do support the claim.
With respect to maintaining the status quo, it has been argued that the current phrasing excludes the territories from the definition. I'm not sure I really understand the sourcing situation with respect to expressly excluding the territories, but the counter-argument (which I happen to agree with) is that the phrasing does not exclude the territories.
With respect to using the legal encyclopedias to establish and discuss ambiguity, there have been arguments presented by the other two sides that the sources those encyclopedias rely on are outdated, that accepting their interpretation of those sources is synthesis, or that they fail to take certain nuanced distinctions of those territories' statuses into account.
One overall concern is that, since we're dealing with the lede of a general article, conciseness is a major issue. And as Golbez points out, going definitively one way or another could have implications as to other claims made in the article (e.g., land area, population, GDP), especially where the sources supporting those claims does not make it abundantly clear which sense they're using. Even presuming the current phrasing is sufficient, it's unclear how this particular concern should be resolved. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that this may well have come her a bit too early. This seems to be a case for the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard along with a neutrally worded RFC. The noticeboard would establish what the sources are (primary, tertiary or secondary) as well as how they should be used. An RFC would help determine a consensus by seeking broader input by the general community. I will say this much, anyone who claims that the sources are outdated and that editors are required to find current (this year) sources must demonstrate this per policy and guidelines as I don't see this as accurate in the least. They must demonstrate themselves that there is some major change in law of recognition that is different than the past sources show.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The argument to include the territories as part of the republic relies primarily on Sparrow's article, "Empires External and Internal", which is rs:
"Despite the continued existence of the territories and the U.S. government lands, students of federalism and the U.S. political system chronically assume the United States to be a nation of states, operating under federal principles and constituted wholly by the separate states. How, then, did the United States come to encompass these persons and areas outside the sphere of its federal republic.... And at present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia, and, of course, the fifty states.... The reality of the United State' possessions within and without the several states, however, has not been integrated into thinking about the American political system. Rather the consistent premise has been that the United States has a federal system, a national polity consituted in its entirety by its component states. Writers on the U.S. political system ignore how the existence of the territories and U.S. government lands can be reconciled with the notion of a federal nation-state.(pp. 232,240)"[2]
My reading of the source is that first he does not say that the territories are part of the republic, but that both the republic and the territories are part of the United States, which he describes as an "empire". But more importantly, Sparrow is providing an argument against accepted informed opinion.
While the boundaries of the United States conform to the external boundaries of the several states, the meaning of "United States" is broader when the issue concerns United States' sovereignty in reference to other nations. In the latter context, the United States includes all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government wherever located. (77 Am. Jur. 2d United States § 1)
I do not see that as an argument that territories are part of the republic, merely an observation that the term U.S. can have different meanings. Hence an attack on a U.S. naval vessel is an attack on the U.S., but the geography of the U.S. does not vary as her ships travel across the oceans. Also, there is no reason why we should substitute the primary definition of the U.S. with the "broader" definition that applies "when the issue concerns United States' sovereignty in reference to other nations."
I am going on a Wikibreak for now. I will be handing this DR/N off to another volunteer.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a volunteer here at WP:DRN, and I'll help out here the best I can. Let me read the material above, and the article & its talk page, and then I can get engaged here. I'm pretty busy in real life now, so it may take me a day or so. --Noleander (talk)
reference marker:Insular cases
‘’The U.S. is a federal constitutional republic of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories,’’ is a concise expression of the geographic extent, U.S.G. reports nine unorganized places. --- “Include territories” is not based on Sparrow alone; I will bring scholarly and government secondary sources along with U.S.G. primary sources as needed. --- The December RfCs at United States and political science produced no objection. There is no rationale for further delay to adding a sourced contribution.
Insular cases are not settled law, we have a living Justice quoted to the effect that the rationale of the Insular Cases should not be further extended in American jurisprudence, with no contradiction since in scholarship or case law, but support for "include territories" found in direct quotes from both.
There is no sourced example of “accepted informed opinion” to the contrary of Sparrow since publication in 2005, in historical context of U.S. territorial incorporation since 1805 at the Louisiana Purchase, the subject of the anthology. Territories are a part of a federal nation-state, “at present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories”.
The U.S. country article should not be treated as a monarchy, neither the Kingdom of Great Britain nor the Kingdom of Denmark as editors have proposed. France is an example of an republic country-article that reports the official extent of the "Republic of France" in the introduction including its territories of citizens with National Assembly representation. All statistics are reported as “Metropolitan France”, meaning continental France and Corsica only. U.S. census data reports continental U.S. and Hawaii. In neither the case does the inclusion or exclusion of their territories alter the country ranking internationally relative to metrics of population, economy or agriculture. The official U.S.G. "United States of America" is 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories with citizens and representation in the House of Representatives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me present a couple intersting links which support the inclusion of territories as part of the definition of the United States:
The United States includes 50 States and one district, as well as several territories and other associated areas that are not States but that are under U.S. jurisdiction.
“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
I understand that there are other reliable sources that have differing definitions of the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
In the Talk:United States archives, Buzity previously cited the legal references above. Should he be invited to the discussion. He was active January-February as I remember. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)
The more the merrier, IMHO. The more editors involved, the stronger a consensus is once it is formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The first link is to Kentucky legislation that says in their statutes, the term U.S. includes territories. It also says that the territories are states. It is original research to read into this that the U.S. has incorporated its territories, and therefore of no relevance to the discussion. Can you provide any reliable secondary sources that support inclusion? TFD (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Please tell me where I stated that the territories were incorporated? I'd like to see where I said something I did not do. No worries though, misunderstandings happen .
The volunteer was asking for reliable sources that define the United States. These are reliable sources that do just that. As I said, when posting these RSs, I understand that there are other reliable sources that have differing definitions of the United States. I think we can all agree that depending on the reliable source, the definition of the U.S. will differ.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Okay, I've read up on everything. A few questions:
1) The scope of this DRN case is primarily focused on the wording of the lead of the United States article, correct? Or do some parties think that a project-wide consensus (applying to multiple articles) is necessary or desirable? Or is the assumption that any change to the lead will trickle-down and impact other US-related articles?
2) The Infobox of the United States article contains several statistics: which of those statistics include the territories and which do not? Do the citations for those statistics say one way or another?
3) I gather that some concepts for the lead wording are:
a) "The U.S. is a federal constitutional republic of fifty states, a federal district, five organized territories and nine uninhabited possessions."
b) Add late in the lead: "In some contexts the term US includes the territories, and in other contexts it does not" (wording very rough ... you get the idea).
c) "The United States of America ... is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district.... [gap here] ... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean." [this is the status quo]
d) "The United States, officially the United States of America, is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states, a federal district, and other territories."
Request: can parties please post additional specific proposals for the lead wording (put your proposals below).
4) I think, no matter what the outcome, we may need a footnote or two in the lead, just to be comprehensive.
1) The concern might better be expressed as a "trickling up". Broad articles like these ideally incorporate sub-articles by summary style. Thus, a reader going to a subtopic, may be confronted by inconsistency. That's in part why I tried to solicit a broader consensus from the United States WikiProject.
2) The CIA Factbook is used for the infobox stats, which includes only the 50 states and DC. I believe proponents for the broad inclusion of territories have contended that this source should be discarded in favor of one that does include territories.
3) That about covers it. My personal proposal is roughly 3(b).
4) I can agree to that. One concern, however, has been the level of detail necessary therein, with proponents of the 3(a) wording essentially calling for the arguments for each side be stuffed into the footnote. (see this response, thread archived here). Part of the problem with this is the sourcing for the 3(a) wording is in dispute. Being in favor of 3(b) as I am, I would prefer to paraphrase the legal encyclopedias' discussion in said footnote, but of course those sources have also been the subject of dispute.
Another point I'd like to make: I do support 3(d) as an alternative to 3(b), but I don't consider it optimal. I am concerned that it leaves editorial landmines in the article (the sourced statistics). Say a new editor enters the scene, changes a statistic in the article, and provides a reliable source (just one that differs in terms of the definition of United States used). In all likelihood, we'd have a WP:BALANCE situation: the two (sets of) sources would be of relatively equal prominence and reliability. If we cover both sources/figures for that one statistic, why only do it there? (i.e., why not 3(b)?) The other option is to discuss which source the article should use, and the structure of such a discussion would likely take the form of arguments towards each source's reliability or prominence in the hopes of tipping the scales just enough that we can justify excluding the other source by looking to WP:DUE. And I think that sort of dispute is essentially what's going on here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Response by RightCowLeftCoast
1)My primary concern is the United States article. However, I can understand that Wikipedia:Consistency (although now archived) comes into play. As Mendaliv has said, the United States article can be seen as a parent article to many other articles. Although by their evolution most of those articles developed independent of the United States article, they can be seen as very closely related.
As I have seen many different sources, and many different stats have used diffiring inclusive/exlusive boundries when creating those stats. And most are not consistent with the other. So there is not a clear black and white as to what the United States is defined, and is for the most part very based on the context of its usage.
For instance, at the Olympics Puerto Rico is considered a seperate entity, however in regards to foreign relations it is considered part of the United States if it were attacked militarily, nor does it have independent representation at the OAS.
2)I believe Mendaliv is correct. I would be fine with different articles about the United States having different inclusive/exclusive areas for its stats, as long as it is clear what those areas are.
3)My proposal is 3d as I see it as inclusive by being ambigious about what those other territories are, thus leaving a grey area for those who want to include ALL territories and those who only want to include certain territories in their definition.
4)I would not object footnotes, but prefer to have the differences well referenced and explained in a section following the lead, say a terminology section. This way it is clear that the United States is larger or smaller depending on the definition used.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Response by TheVirginiaHistorian
My concern is the integrity of a source-based encyclopedia. Sources say the U.S. is a republic of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories. I have agreed to LCRC’s proposed wording for the purpose of collaboration. The U.S.G. in a secondary source 2007, says to guide immigrants p.77, The U.S. includes 50 states, the District … and [the five organized territories of] Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.
_ 1) Constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson edited an anthology in 2005 with co-editor Bartholomew Sparrow. (a)Sparrow says p.232, territories are a part of a federal nation-state; today the U.S. includes territories in the Caribbean and Pacific. (b) Lawson and Sloane in Boston College Law Review p.1160-1162, and (c) Judge Juan R. Torruella in the Journal of International Law p.326, are “include territories" scholarly sources. No editor has found any scholarly source to “exclude territories” from the Union
_ 2) U.S.G. in primary sources in multiple examples of statute, jurisprudence and executive order “include territories”. The State Department Manual interprets INA law including four major territories as a part of the U.S., with Samoan nationals and citizens, the “last overseas territory”. GAO reports to Congress report the ‘five major territories’ have a constitutional status “equivalent to states”; they are ‘a part of the U.S.’ These U.S.G. primary sources, manuals and reports are said to be editor synthesis and original research, making scholarly and government secondary sources "including territories" inadmissible. I disagree on both counts.
_ _ Over a discussion October 2012-March 2013, nowhere is there a source of any description which says, “ the official United States is the incorporated territory of 50 states, a federal district and Palmyra Atoll, excluding organized U.S. territories with citizens and autonomous government equivalent to states.” Editors must cobble a synthesis across multiple tertiary sources without direct quotes referencing WP articles, lists, digests, dictionaries and encyclopedias, each shown to be inapplicable to U.S. territories of 2013 by secondary and primary sources from the most recent 20 years. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
@TVH: Thanks for the input. Was this intended to be a response to my 4 questions above? --Noleander (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Insert: RightCowLeftCoast's d) The United States, officially the United States of America, is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states, a federal district, and other territories. Any space indicates a separation in the federal union which no U.S.G. source acknowledges for a territory in 2013 of citizens, independent legislature, elected governor, Article III federal district and representation in Congress.
_ _ No sources says official publications by Department of Homeland Security including territories are illegitimate to represent U.S.G., poisoned at their source and void in the eyes of international law. Editor assertion, "All sources say." to contradict is not a source.
_ _ Samoa residents include native naturalized citizens and children of citizens born in Samoa, irrevocably guaranteed by federal courts. TFD's possessions had military governors with populations ineligible for citizenship. Nothing is admitted in the last half-century of U.S. history since 1962 by the "exclude territories side. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Response by the Four Deuces
The current wording of the lead for the United States is fine. The U.S. "is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district.... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean." Using this definition, statistics should only include the U.S. or explain when they are including other territories. The wording could affect other articles. For example, including the territories would mean that we could not say that the U.S. has birthright citizenship, since it has not been extended to American Samoa. It creates problems for historical information as well, since the U.S. has occupied dozens of countries or parts of countries in the past. TFD (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
[Note from volunteer Noleander: Still waiting for user Golbez to respond before proceeding --Noleander (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)]
Response by Golbez
1) Yes, the crux of the discussion is how the country is defined in the introduction. However, if it is changed in the introduction then cascading changes throughout the article and Wikipedia must occur to remain consistent.
2) I do not know, and that is the other primary issue; everything in there must be checked to see if it applies to the territories or not. To the best of my knowledge, all facts and figures in the United States infobox and article, unless otherwise specified, omit all territories. For example, the population figure, taken straight from the U.S. Census, omits the territories. (Which brings up a pertinent question: If they are part of the country then why do multiple government agencies and figures omit them?)
3) I much prefer the status quo wording (C), as I feel it handles the issue the best. But, I have said that, should a consensus be gained for solution D (though the version I saw ended with "... other territories and possessions", which is required), that I would not challenge it. A is right out, and B is too much detail for the lede.
4) If we stuck with C, then yes, I would be fine with a footnote stating that some sources portray the U.S. as including some territories, but this article treats them otherwise. --Golbez (talk)
More questions
Thanks for the responses above. I'm starting to get a clearer picture. More questions:
A party above suggests that a change from 3c (the status quo) to something like 3d or 3b (include the territories in the 1st sentence) would require changes to the entire article and to other articles within WP. Can parties comment on that possible impact?
It looks like some persons born in some of the territories are not US citizens, correct? Do these non-citizens carry US passports?
What do parties think of another wording option (I'll call it (3e) for the sake of consistency): "The United States of America ... is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. The country also comprises several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean, and several uninhabited possessions."
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the article were to include a sentence approximately like "The term 'United States' is sometimes used in a sense that includes the territories, and sometimes in a sense that excludes the territories". Where would such a sentence go: (7a) the Lead; (7b) the body; (7c) a footnote to the Lead; (7d) the sentence is wrong and should be excluded.
Thanks in advance for your replies. --Noleander (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Response by Mendaliv
As I mentioned above, my concern with 3(d) stems from uninitiated editors with new sources entering the scene, changing statistics to reflect a new source that defines the United States differently, and triggering this whole argument again with respect to that statement. I don't think 3(d) requires up-front changes or even thorough fact-checking to United States, and may in fact not affect related articles all that much (perhaps except in the case where the related article uses 3(a) or its opposite, in which case we'd want to start a discussion there). 3(b) on the other hand would at least put editors on notice that they should exercise greater care than usual with statistics, etc. I believe it would be preferable in executing 3(b) to go through the article and indicate the definition in use where otherwise ambiguous.
"United States citizenship is not required for passport eligibility, but the applicant must be a national of the United States, and owe allegiance to the United States." 59A Am. Jur. 2d Passports § 21 (citing 22 U.S.C.§ 212, 22 CFR51.2, and 22 CFR51.1) (footnotes omitted); see also8 U.S.C.§ 1408 (cited by 22 CFR51.1) (defining how a person can gain "national" status at birth without gaining citizenship).
See also8 U.S.C.§ 1185(c) (defining United States for the purposes of § 1185 as including the "Canal Zone, and all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.").
I have no particular problem with that, but I do recall one point of contention being that the territories should be syntactically placed on the same stage as the states and DC (thread archived here). Thus I don't see that particular arrangement working out.
First choice would be 7(b), followed by 7(c). I dislike informational footnotes stylistically, but I am not against their use when necessary.
5. Articles that claim there is birthright citizenship would have to be changed because that right only exists for persons born in the 50 states and D.C. and territories where it has been extended. We would have to determine which parts of the U.S. constitution apply to the various territories.
6. Nationality is a concept derived from common law and is recognized under international law while citizenship is derived from statute and not recognized. All persons born in territories under American jurisdiction are therefore American nationals entitled to U.S. passports. But that gives them no right to enter the 50 states or D.C. or to vote if they live there. The same reasoning applies to British nationality law. Hence citizens of Hong Kong were British nationals without the right of entry to the U.K. People in territories only receive birthright citizenship under the constitution if the territories have been "incorporated" into the U.S. However the U.S. Congress has extended birthright citizenship into 4 of the unincorporated territories.
7. Under the laws of the U.S. and international law, the U.S. consists only of fifty states and D.C., with the status of the uninhabited Palmyra Atoll remaining undetermined.
8. Probably in the lead after the statement, "The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean." However, I would write, ""The term 'United States' is sometimes used in a sense that includes all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government". The source is clear that this is a secondary use of the term.
5. The SOURCED U.S. supreme court holdings directly quoted with links showed birthright citizenship of soil obtains “irrevocably” to 50 states, a federal district and four U.S. territories, the fifth, Samoa, has national status of soil and irrevocable citizenship by blood and naturalization, as has been U.S. constitutional practice in the U.S. territories since 1805. U.S.G. can be relied upon for determination of U.S. citizenship in the U.S., no source claims it to be illegitimate, the article need not be written as though that international determination is imminent. Such a governing editorial direction would be WP:FRINGE.
6. All citizens and nationals of the U.S. have travel rights throughout the United States. There are permissions required to enter Samoa, “the last overseas territory” in linked US State Manual. The unsourced view that there is no international recognition of “citizenship” versus “nationals”, may be a refight of the War of 1812, denying possibility of islander naturalization in 2013, or merely echoing Blackstone -- but again, without sources for discussion. The U.S. is an internationally recognized nation-state ensuring fundamental human rights with self-determination in territorial local autonomy according to the US constitutional practice in place since 1805, see Levinson.
7. 3e is difficult: it allows a language consistent for republics-with-territories and monarchies-with-territories, but editor concern for “uninitiated editors with new sources entering the scene” might be realized, they might imagine they could separate the statements --- to wiki-secede U.S. territories from the federal union. Under the laws of the U.S. directly quoted with links over the last twenty years by statute, jurisprudence, executive order and government reports --- the federal union is 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories. "Exclude territory" editors repeatedly assert the contrary without sources in a time warp which does not admit any U.S. history since 1935, and no secondary sources under any circumstances.
8. [Any country named] “Sometimes-in-the-sense/sometimes-in-the-sense” is not appropriate to a country-article meant for the general international reader. It is an exercise in lexicography, arcane distinction apart from common usage. I cannot find the formulation in any other country-article, certainly not for a monarchy. There is no source which says the federal union has secondary citizens and editors make no pretence to quote from WP:MADEUP sources. There are none. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Response by Gwillhickers
5. If a change is made in the lede regarding 'what' the U.S. consists of then of course corresponding changes must occur where appropriate, as I have already indicated.
6. Concur with Mendaliv: "United States citizenship is not required for passport eligibility, but the applicant must be a national of the United States, and owe allegiance to the United States., however I don't quite see how this would define what the US consists of either way.
7. Your wording option is sufficient.
8. Any wording that brings clarity to the extent that the territories are part of the United States is of course welcomed, but for purposes of the lede we need to concentrate on a summary definition, per lede statements and articulate any distinguishing legislature in a footnote and/or in the body of the text.
5. Most people don't see the impact because the territories are relatively small. Let's say that, instead of arguing whether or not Puerto Rico were part of the U.S., we were arguing over whether the U.S. was part of Puerto Rico. People would obviously be saying that we need to check the article and all facts and sources to make sure they conform to the new definition. The inclusion of the territories is at least a 1% shift in the population metric, and possibly other things as well, and it requires our due diligence to make sure we aren't publishing an article that is internally inconsistent, not to mention an encyclopedia that is such.
6. People born in four territories receive birthright citizenship, in the fifth (Samoa) they receive birthright nationality. It's a curious system we've dreamed up, to be sure. In the remaining uninhabited territories, so far as I know there is no birthright anything.
7. Not sure I like this, because it's implying the territories are part of the country. I still find the status quo wording to be the best option.
8. I would want this information in a footnote, with a lengthy treatment of what we're trying to say. This is not something that can be expressed in a single sentence.
A note: We shouldn't get bogged down in the legalese of it. It is entirely irrelevant to our purposes whether or not someone is eligible for a passport, or has birthright citizenship, or what not. If we base our decision based on these then we are synthesizing something. All that matters is, how does the country define itself? The judiciary performed that duty, and no higher court or body has overruled it. Some first party sources are inconsistent as to the makeup of the country beyond the states and federal district, but that does not mean that we should rely on third party scholarship to tell us how a country defines itself. The main questions are, is the incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy still in use (and people seem to think it is, due to omitting the uninhabited territories), and if so, are the five major territories (which so far has no single definition, since nothing fits all five and only those five territories so far; birthright citizenship, organization, representation, etc., no criteria that I've seen so far fits just those five) de facto incorporated in to the United States? We need to ensure we don't get distracted from these fundamental question. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Response by RightCowLeftCoast
5) Depending on the editors interpretation of the sentence it may require changes in the content to include or exclude data regarding territories of the United Stats (outside of the 50 states and one federal district). For some reason, statistically the government, and other non-government groups, have been inconsistent as to whether demographic data includes or excludes areas outside of the 50 states and one federal district (to include Indian Reservations (which are on par with States when dealing with the Federal Government), and lesser territories)). For instance, racial demographic data was very easily found for territories following the 2000 Census, however following the 2010 census it is non-existent. I think if each article specifies what the limits of the data presented are, it need not effect the rest of the content.
6) This is correct, Individuals who are born in four of the organized populised territories and all fifty states get citizenship in accordance with jus soli. Additionally, those born in American Samoa are, at birth, automatically given Birthright U.S. Nationality (this formerly applied to the Philippines until 1935; on a side note those former U.S. Nationals, who by statute lost their national status in 1935, who were still in the continental U.S. in prior to March 1943 were granted Citizenship (see History of Asian American immigration)).
7) The separation into two paragraphs is a compromise I can live with.
8) In the body. Given the wide ranges of definitions of the United States a terminology section should exists.
With the perspective that the U.S., 'not China', is in possession of Puerto Rico, etc, and that they are governed by the Federal government i.e."a federal constitutional republic", per the lede statement, it should be stated that these territories are indeed part of the United States in the first sentence in the lede -- esp since there is an abundance of Reliable Sources that support this idea as TheVirginiaHistorian and others have eloquently pointed out. If there are various laws that distinguish between states and territories they should be added with footnotes, in accord with the RS's. Statistics in the infobox should reflect all states and territories, regardless of any differences between laws regulating states and territories. If this produces a "cascading" effect regarding info contained in other areas and pages then of course they will have to be adjusted. Since the RS's (secondary sources) maintain that the U.S. possessions are indeed part of the United States then, frankly, I'm a little miffed as to why this debate has gone on for this long. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Gwillhickers might want to add their responses to the eight questions asked above by the volunteers.
It is my view of the ongoing discussion regarding the lead sentence of the United States article, that there are a plurality of editors that support including territories to the lead sentence (although how to do so for the rest of the article, and other related article still seems up to debate), some who are neutral to the change, and one who outright opposes inclusion of territories to the lead sentence (I understand the view, though disagree with it).
As a side note to something said elsewhere regarding this debate, I wonder if it's a typo or not but President Obama used "these United States" in his 2013 inauguration speech. If this usage returns to popular usage it will effect how the United States is treated stylistically (singular to plural) in the United States article and other related articles on Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Concluding that because the U.S. is in possession of territories that they are part of the U.S. is original research. Note that the UK and Portugal were in possession of Hong Kong and Macao, yet they remained part of China, the U.S. is in possession of Guantanamo Bay, yet it is part of Cuba. Following this logic, we would have to conclude that the American colonies were once part of England, Mexico was part of Spain, etc. In ordinary language their is a distinction between being part of a person and being part of a person. For example one's foot is part of oneself, while one's shoe is not. TFD (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
It would not be original research if instead of presenting argument arguments, sources had been presented. TFD (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stop ; do not go all I didn't hear that. If any interested editor looks above, I have provided the RSs which I wrote of. Additionally, another editor has noted that an other editor in the past have provided those same reliable sources, as well as other sources that support the definition of the United States that includes states (see Archive 45, Archive 44, and Archive 43). Therefore, the onus is on those who oppose that definition to provide other reliable sources that differ with those; at which point we can look at the weight of each source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
A Kentucky statute that says for the purposes of state legislation the term "United States" includes territories and the territories are considered to be states? Using sources like that to support your thesis is OR. Now find some sources that make the specific claim you believe. TFD (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with TFD on that point. Statutes and regulations should be considered, at best, primary sources. Could we source to a bill of attainder condemning X as a traitor to support the statement "X is a traitor"? Absolutely not. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
RS does not disallow the usage of primary sources, and there are sources that I provided that are not statutes and/or regulations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify the part I agree with and why: primary sources are disfavored, especially for supporting contentious statements. A crucial point that has been overlooked repeatedly in this discussion is that there is no basis in logic or in policy to use statutory definitions, which are tremendously influenced by the political process, to control the discussion in Wikipedia articles. Should the article on person talk about corporations because 1 U.S.C.§ 1 defines "person" as including corporations? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Your primary source does not say that the territories are parts of the U.S., merely that they are considered as such in the Kentucky legislation. The statute also says that they are considered to be states. Yet you do not claim that there are 57 states. If you believe that the territories are part of the U.S. you need a source that says that. TFD (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It's already been pointed out in this discussion that There is no secondary source to classify U.S. territories of 2013 as “separate personalities”. and The VirginiaHistorian has presented a number of secondary sources that say the territories are indeed part of the US. Also, a government source is not automatically a primary source. In WP primary sources it clearly says:
There is no original material (i.e.original letters and documents) and none of the writers cited by TVH and others were directly involved in the acquisition of these territories -- they are simply reporting the historical accounts involved. Regarding 57 states: Though no one, or perhaps no sources, refers to "57 states" we still must however go by what they do say, and they indeed say the territories are part of the USA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I provided the secondary source above. (.["Study of W. Michael Reisman, Myers S. McDougal Professor of International Law, Yale Law School and Robert D. Sloane, Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law", U.S. Congress, 2006, pp. 120, 136, 149ff.[3]) If you think that the status of the territories has changed in the last seven years, please provide the law, treaty or proclamation that made the change. However, no secondary sources have been provided to support the view that the U.S. includes the territories. TFD (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Statutes and regulations are primary sources as to their own interpretations and consequences. To suggest that Wikipedia should rely on statutory definitions is patently absurd; there are situations in which it might be desirable to say a certain government statutorily treats something in a certain way, but Wikipedia is not and should not be bound by American politics with respect to a fundamental fact in its articles. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The source I was referring to is not a primary source, per WP policy, and there are indeed secondary non governmental sources that make the claim, as TheVirginaHistorian has already outlined:
1)' Constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson edited an anthology in 2005 with co-editor Bartholomew Sparrow. (a)Sparrow says p.232, territories are a part of a federal nation-state; today the U.S. includes territories in the Caribbean and Pacific. (b) Lawson and Sloane in Boston College Law Review p.1160-1162 ... (For where, as in Puerto Rico, decolonization creates a State freely associated with the United States ...)
Taking Sparrow's chapter in context, he makes the overall point that there are multiple ways of understanding what "United States" means. Yes, there's a single line in there that says the United States includes the territories, but you can't take that out of context to say the term includes the territories in all situations. As to the law review article (50 B.C. L. Rev. 1123), that quote doesn't have anything to do with whether the term "United States" refers to a territory.
Back to statutes, just to reflect the inherent danger in relying on them for our purposes, RightCowLeftCoast referred to 15 U.S.C.§ 1127 and 18 U.S.C.§ 2340, and gave quotes. With both of these, you need to take the overall context of the statute into account. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 explicitly states that those definitions are for the construction of that chapter, 15 U.S.C.ch. 22, on trademarks. The same is true of 18 U.S.C. § 2340; it is explicitly limited to that chapter, 18 U.S.C.ch. 133C, on the crime of torture. It would be unpublished synthesis for us to take those few specific statutes and broadly apply them to all situations. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
A "State freely associated with the United States" is an "associated state", not a state of the United States. To be associated with a person does not make one part of that person. TFD (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a skewed analogy at best. Two persons can belong to the same family -- and 'states' and 'territories' can belong to the same country and controlled by one federal government, to one degree or another. We have the sources above that claim the U.S. includes territories in several different contexts, (granted not in every aspect), we have other governmental sources (non primary) that claim this and we have sources that say the territories are controlled by the federal government. We can't say the territories are not part of the U.S. (esp since there are no secondary sources that say this), and we certainly can't say the territories are independent of the U.S., so for purposes of the lede, and in terms of communicating this to the average reader, we can make the assertion, with a footnote that mentions distinguishing legislature per states and territories. This, it would seem, should satisfy all parties involved, bearing in mind that the topic is a controversial one, which, btw, we could also mention in the footnote. A plan? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
All input is welcome in this DRN case, but I was wondering if we could try to follow a structured process here? Creating new subsections in the Discussion section may just create multiple, parallel threads and cause confusion. Could editors try to package their thoughts as responses to the 8 questions above? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there an end in sight?
It seems this discussion has been going on for some time, on the USA talk page and now here, so it seems we need to simply assert what secondary sources say, noting any distinguishing facts, and be done with this. As it's been said, we can assert in the lede that the territories are 'part of the US' and note the distinguishing differences. Bear in mind also, and speaking from past experience, if the discussion here continues for much longer it will become a blur.. and you will lose the participation of volunteers and you will be left to go round and round with the same discussions all over again. At the risk of sounding patronizing, the Editors involved here are obviously quite knowledgeable and have made great efforts of time and research in the attempt to resolve this issue, but at this late date we need to take the fruits of your labor and give the readers something to show for it. As there doesn't seem to be any one definitive or primary reason not to make the general statement in question, below is how the lede statement should read: -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Roughly proposal 3(d) supra. As I stated, I'm willing to accept this, but I would strongly, strongly prefer the footnote to come out and say that in different contexts the term may or may not include the territories, and cite to either American Jurisprudence or Corpus Juris Secundum. I honestly don't see why the ambiguity point is even in controversy. Is there actually anybody here who believes the term "United States" unambiguously does not include territories, or unambiguously includes territories? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Good points. And yes, we can make clarifications regarding ambiguities between states and territories in the foot note so as not to slight the reader who may want to know about these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The "federal constitutional republic", which is the topic of the article, unambiguously does not include possessions. While it is true that the term "United States" may include possessions etc., the same is true for any other country. That would mean that at one time most of the world was part of European nations. Also, we should state which territories are included in the second definition. Apparently it includes all territories but may also include areas not thought of as territories, such as ships and planes. TFD (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Wording needs work of course, but that's my attempt at resolving the observation TFD brings up. I'm not sure if I agree with the observation, but I do think it's at least a symptom of the ambiguity present in the term. As to putting a list of the territories... frankly, TFD, we cannot do that in a simple or straightforward manner in the lede, especially not without having to include a truckload of references. The point of the 3(d) proposed wording was to leave the matter open for resolution in later sections and sub-articles if we felt it necessary, rather than to foreclose the use of any particular interpretation when the sources support it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I would ask everyone to please be patient. Above some questions were posed (numbered 5 to 8) and only 2 of 5 parties have responded to those questions. We need to wait for all parties to have an opportunity to respond. All editors, not just the listed parties, are welcome to respond to the questions above. Some DRN cases go on for 2 or 3 weeks before a resolution is reached. There is no rush. --Noleander (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Mendaliv, the federal constitutional republic does not include the territories and the source, American Jurisprudence, does not say that. Under the second definition the U.S. could be "the federal constitutional republic and territories." As decided in Downes v. Bidwell 1901, the insular case which is the source for the Am Jur entry, the judge conceded that although sometimes the term US was used to include unincorporated territories, they formed no part of the republic and that the constitution did not apply to them. And we cannot say that the U.S. includes territories when the main definition, the one used in the U.S. constitution, confirmed by the insular cases, the stated position of successive presidents and congresses and accepted under international law does not include them. TFD (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Downes v. Bidwell isn't the main source for the Am. Jur. article, though it may be mentioned in the C.J.S. article. Both primarily rely upon Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt. Regardless, it's the text of the article that matters for our purposes, because it's clearly doing interpretation of the precedents it uses as sources (otherwise the contention that because Hooven is talking about a three- or four-year period in the 1940s, the Am. Jur. article can only apply to that period would be reasonable). In fact, in that sense you could argue Am. Jur. works as a secondary instead of tertiary source in that regard, since court cases are themselves primary sources. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The passage from Hooven & Allison is quoting Downes v. Bidwell, which re-affirms the reasoning in that case. Since you did not provide the full entry so that we could read it in context, I read the sources that are used to support the statement. The section you did quote says, "the meaning of "United States" is broader when the issue concerns United States' sovereignty in reference to other nations." That does not mean that Am Jur is saying that the territories are part of the U.S., let alone part of the "federal constitutional republic", and it says the second meaning is only applicable when "the issue concerns United States' sovereignty in reference to other nations." That is similar to when the United States signed the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 with Great Britain.[4] It does not mean that Canada was part of Great Britain, merely that in the treaty the term Great Britain included Canada because it was responsible for Canada's foreign affairs until 1926. TFD (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to post copyrighted material verbatim here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The judgment in Hooven & Allison says, "The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.... That our dependencies, acquired by cession as the result of our war with Spain, are territories belonging to, but not a part of, the Union of states under the Constitution was long since established by a series of decisions in this Court beginning with The Insular Tax Cases in 1901.... In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for the United States.... And, in general, the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guaranties applicable.... The status of the Philippines as territory belonging to the United States, but not constitutionally united with it, has been maintained consistently in all the governmental relations between the Philippines and the United States."[5] Would that be a fair summary of what Am Jur says? TFD (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Mendaliv. Carrying on ad nauseam about particular court cases doesn't address the general premise that the United States owns 'States' and 'Territories', both of which are governed by Federal law and Congressional oversight. Reminder, per the U.S. Constitution: Article III: Section 3, Clause 2:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; (emphasis added)
For purposes of the lede we can say that territories are part of the United States, and again there are secondary sources that support this premise, already brought to your attention.
The above (now below) lede statement, with Mendaliv's note of clarification is more than adequate for purposes of the lede.
"The United States of America ... is a country, governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states a federal district and several territories.[note 2]
I can agree with the most recent rewording of the lead sentence as proposed by Mendaliv.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Final questions
Just a couple more questions:
Google indicates that the phrase "United States and Puerto Rico" is heavily used. Google shows > 1M hits; Google Books shows > 100,000 hits. Puerto Rico is a territory of the US. Can editors comment on how, if at all, that impacts the issue of the Lead wording?
I do not see a proposal above for creating two distinct articles: one for United States (member of family of nations, including territories, etc), and another for United States (federation of 50 states, excluding territories, etc) (I'm not suggesting that those two italicized phrases would be the exact titles, merely that those are the two article-topics). Is there general consensus that WP readers will be best served by a single article (with the title United States) instead of two?
Thanks in advance for your responses. --Noleander (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Response of TheVirginiaHistorian.
9. In U.S. historical usage, U.S. territory has THREE meanings which may not be readily evident in a google-search-as-authoritative-secondary-source. a) possession with a military governor without nationals or citizens (uninhabited, alien populations of French in Louisiana, Germans in Samoa, Spanish in Puerto Rico). b) unincorporated territory of resident nationals (Philippines, early Arizona) with presidentially appointed governor, legislature serving at pleasure, Article I federal courts reappointed each congress, c) incorporated territory of citizens with elected governor, republican self-government, Article III federal courts appointed for life, and territorial Member of Congress. (late Arizona, PR, GM, AS, VI, MP).
_ _ Puerto Rico, Guam, Am. Samoa, Virgin Islands and Northern Marianas are in 2013 all of the third kind of U.S. territory. They have by popular referendum accepted the authority of Congress and Constitution along with rights and privileges of citizenship. They are “perpetually” (congress), “irrevocably” (supreme court) cemented in the federal union of the United States of America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
10. The United States "as a federation of 50 states excluding territories" is that of 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entry, United States, vol. 27 p.612. the U.S. “exclusive of Alaska and outlying possessions.” This European point of view persisted in Britannica pages, though the U.S. 1905 Rassumussen case ruled Alaska judicially “incorporated” by Congress making citizens by the soil without it "explicitly" writing the word incorporated into Alaska's organic statute. Therefore the viewpoint of the U.S. "as a federation of 50 states excluding territories" belongs in a history article, “Insular United States, 1895-1905”, or some such.
_ _ The temporary constitutional anomaly stretching to govern former Spanish colonies in Guam, Philippines and Puerto Rico resulted in Insular Case "political apartheid" (Torruella, J. Int’l Law 2007). It is eclipsed in U.S. history beginning in 1935, and extinguished by 1963. This evolution is shown by scholars published in law journals at Boston University, University of Texas and the "Federal Lawyer" in 2005, 2007 and 2011 on the subject of “Insular Cases”, as directly quoted, sourced and linked in previous discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Response by Golbez
9) I'm sure some would say it's a relic of the past practice of treating them separately, but I don't think it's very relevant; Google usage cannot tell us that something is or is not part of a country. Only the parties involved (the country and the area in question) can do that.
10) God, I hope so. Having two articles would be horrible. It works in cases where here is an actual terminology or legal entity (Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand, etc.), but note that the granddaddy of them all, the UK, only has one article. There is no "United Kingdom (member of family of nations, including territories, etc)" article, that I'm aware of. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Response by Mendaliv
I think I get what you're going for. If United States unambiguously includes Puerto Rico, then it's at least redundant if not absurd to have the phrasing "United States and Puerto Rico". While the Google test isn't the most praised method for researching things on Wikipedia, it's tremendously useful in doing research into linguistics and lexicography... which, in a sense, is what we need. While we can't cite to something like that, there's absolutely nothing wrong with using something like this to cut the Gordian knot by guiding us to a consensus: there is ambiguity.
I think a fork is possible, with the split being between the geographical concept of the United States and the sovereign concept of the United States. But I don't think this is ideal anymore. From the look of things, this is a very nuanced, very subtle distinction for the vast majority of cases. Where it matters most is with respect to the geography, demographics, and economy portions of the article. Otherwise... hell, I honestly don't know.
9. The term "U.S. and Puerto Rico" uses the primary definition of the U.S. where, according to Am Jur, "the boundaries of the United States conform to the external boundaries of the several states." That definition conforms with the description of the U.S. in its constitution.
10. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so there is no need to create articles for every possible definitiion of a term. Under a coverture, a woman's personality was subsumed under her husband and they became one person under law. However we do not have two articles for George Washington, one for the man and one for the man and wife. Even though George and Martha were the same person under the law, we consider them to be separate topics.
There are two U.K. articles, one for the U.K. and one for the British Empire, which was the U.K. and her possessions. We have separate articles, British Overseas Territories (BOTs) and Crown dependencies. Under international law, the BOTs are non-self governing territories, which was the original status of the unincorporated territories of the U.S. and still is for three of them. There is a separate article for U.S. territories.
The "British Empire" article is on a defunct entity and is not about the current situation, so you're making a faulty/invalid comparison. There are articles about the territories, yes, just as there are with the U.S. Like the U.S., however, and unlike Denmark etc., there is no single overreaching article of "this is the whole of the British state and territories," in part because there is simply no terminology for it that I'm aware of. Same deal with the U.S. --Golbez (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I was slightly wrong; there is Administrative geography of the United Kingdom, which seems to be the sole clearing house for the UK and its territories. Something similar might make sense for the U.S., if it does not already exist. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Response of RightCowLeftCoast
9) If this were 1890 we would be having this discussion regarding Spain (as one could argue that Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands, and her other territories of the time are part of Spain). That being said, not that it is important to this discussion, if Puerto Rico was the primary subject, and the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianas, American Samoa, and other uninhabited territories were sub-national territories of the parent Puerto Rico government than I would be arguing that the article about the Nation of Puerto Rico should also include data regarding her territories. I am sure that a similar discussion as this has occurred at the Republic of China, Republic of Korea, People's Republic of China, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea articles as well.
10) I do not see the need for two separate articles, but only one article. As I said before, a clear, neutrally worded, and well cited terminology section would serve the article well. It can go in depth as to the differing definitions that have been used for the nation-state that is the United States.
Before answering more questions I would just like to again express the concern of not getting overly involved in so many secondary topics, esp when there are many basic ideas that squarely place the territories under the umbrella of the United States, per Federal laws, Congressional oversight not to mention the U.S. Constitution itself.
9. Google results should not be used as any sort of official yardstick in terms of defining the United States.
10. Like most of the rest, I also feel we don't need to split into two articles. Look at the debate over just the lede statement for the United States page -- now look down the road and see what lies ahead trying to hack out two different ledes when we have yet to settle on a lede here.
Having said that I wholly appreciate Noleander's attempts, effective attempts, to keep order, per the numbered questions and for his/her overall time and effort, as I'm sure everyone else here does. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
United States, unambiguously.
Inquiring editors want to know, "Is there actually anybody here who believes the term "United States" unambiguously does not include territories, or unambiguously includes territories?" Yes, in a) scholarly citations, b) secondary government sources and c) primary U.S. documents in I) statutes, II) executive orders, III) adjudication and GAO government reports and Foreign Affairs Manuals over the last twenty years, as previously directly quoted and linked at U.S. Talk archives 43, 44, and 45, October 2012-March 2013.
_ _ YES, the U.S.G. in a secondary publication to welcome immigrants seeking naturalization, Government Printing Office. “The U.S. now consists” of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories – each of the five are unambiguously enumerated in the link provided, the five are Guam, Am. Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, N. Marianas and Puerto Rico.
_ _ Similarly to French overseas departments in 2013, in each of those five there are populations (a) irrevocably U.S. citizens including growing numbers of citizens in Samoa, (b) governing themselves in local autonomy and (c) represented in national legislature by U.S. constitutional practice. Is there any sourced view that the U.S.G. is certainly illegitimate and incompetent by international law to admit citizens by mutual consent into its federal union? No there is not any such source, unsourced assertions are not admitted, and btw, “All sources say.” is not a source.
_ _ Where can anybody find the question of U.S. territorial status remaining unresolved from 1901? Only from appeal to sources based on U.S. cases BEFORE the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. But we are meant to write for an online country-article in 2013, intended for a general international readership, not an imaginary century-old parallel universe where-time-stands-still for only one Wikipedia country-article of 2013 – this one and only for the United States of America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong arguments - but there is yet another one: The United States had a Northwest Territory made up of pieces claimed from several states, and which was unambiguously defined at the time to be part of the United States. This was not land purchased to be part of the US (Alaska, the Gadsden Purchase and Louisiana) nor acquired by coup (Hawaii) etc., but defined ab initio as part of the nation, hence a strong argument that saying the US is the states alone was wrong from the start. Collect (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly Sparrow's point, the U.S. federal republic is not just states, but states and territories. The distinction between Treaty-to-the-Mississippi versus later acquisition is the raison d'être for the Levinson anthology treating U.S. territorial expansion on land acquired by the Louisiana Purchase and subsequently, first as possession, then unincorporated organized territories, then territories incorporated into the union, then admitted states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The points in this section have been made repeatedly, and addressed repeatedly. Yet the same logical fallacies remain. At any rate, this is not the place to continue our deadlocked discussions, it's a place to seek guidance. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
They are never addressed, only dismissed without sources as above. The point is, still no secondary sources to "exclude territories" of U.S. 2013. On the "include territory" side, there ARE scholarly citations, government secondary sources and the most recent twenty years of subject-country legislative, executive and judicial primary sources. There is no deadlock if there is no substance on the side of "exclude territories".
_ _ We see only snippets of one-hundred year-old citations in dictionaries, digests, and encyclopedias that cannot be directly quoted because editor synthesis is not sourced. Nothing says "U.S. territories of 2013 are not a part of the U.S. federal union." because it is not so, and no reliable source does for the last twenty years, about the time of local referendums to join the union and the Census began formatting territories data by the same format as states in reports of population, economy and agriculture. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Collect, the Insular Cases distinguished between incorporated territories which were unambiguously part of the U.S. and unincorporated territories which were not. The constitution applied in full to the former territories, for example birthright citizenship and jury trials, while in the latter case it only extended to the extent legislated by Congress. The second distinction was that Congress had the right to cede unincorporated territories. Today, there is only one incorporated territory, Palmyra Atoll, which is uninhabited and considered incorporated because it was severed from the Hawaii incorporated territory when Hawaii became a state.
TheVirginiaHistorian, Sparrow does not say "the U.S. federal republic is not just states, but states and territories." He says the U.S. is not just the federal republic, but includes territories because the U.S. is an empire not a republic.
You are reading far more into that one case than is warranted here. I demonstrated that there is no intrinsic reason to say that a territory is not part of the US by virtue of being a territory - and, in fact, the very first territory was expressly considered ab initio to be part of the United States. Unless you find a court overturning the Northwest Ordinance, you are pretty much stuck with accepting it as fact and law. Are you suggesting that since at least one "territory" (Philippines) was never "part" of the United States, that therefore no territory can be asserted to be part of the United States? Such a view is neither in the court decision nor in commentaries thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The Insular Cases determined that the Northwest Ordinance incorporated those territories into the United States, because that was the intention of Congress, while the territories obtained from the Spanish Empire, the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc., were not incorporated because Congress did not incorporate them. At present there is only one incorporated territory, the Palmyra Atoll. People born in Guam for example do not have birthright U.S. citizenship as mandated under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution and Congress retains the power to cede U.S. authority over the territory without a constitutional amendment. Furthermore the U.S. has voluntarily agreed that Guam has the right to self-determination under the U.N. charter. TFD (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Collect and others. TFD is reading far too much into particular cases taken in particular contexts while disregarding major considerations per the Federal Government, Congressional oversight and the U.S. Constitution, all of which place ownership of the territories with the United States, not China, or anyone else. It's been demonstrated time and again the 'States' and 'territories' are part of the U.S.A. If the territories are not independent of the USA, then they belong to it in terms that have been outlined, more than once. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, having owneship of the territories does not mean they are part of the U.S. One's feet for example are part of oneself, while one's shoes, which one owns, are not. The insular cases determined that while the U.S. owned unincorporated territories, they were not part of the U.S. If you have a source that supports your reasoning, please provide it. TFD (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The Insular cases have more than adequately been addressed by TheVirginiaHistorian and others while you continue to ignore that, the non primary sources cited, along with the other aforementioned major considerations, all the while you cling to and cite primary sources, per the Insular cases. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
He has presented many reasons why he disagrees with the insular cases, but no sources that they have been overturned. As pointed out in "Where is Guantanamo", American Studies: An Anthology,John Wiley & Sons, 2009, p. 451, "The Insular Cases have never been overruled...."[6] TheVirginiaHistorian has not provided a source that contradicts that statement. TFD (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Insular cases are primary sources and I will have to get a second opinion regarding your blanket statement about the many sources TVH and others have produced. Again, since the territories are not independent, they are part of another entity, i.e. The United States , inasmuch as two people can belong to the same family. Your shoe analogy is just as skewed as your previous. A territory doesn't have to be a state to be part of the United States, any more than Washington DC does. If the territories are not part of the USA, and they are not independent, then tell us please, how would you define the territories?? Seems all you have done is tell us how not to define them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The findings of the insular cases are supported by the secondary sources that have been provided. Territories are areas subject to U.S. authority but not part of it. They retain a separate international personality with the right to self-determination. Why do you have trouble understanding the distinction? Your statement, "since the territories are not independent, they are part of another entity" is a personal opinion not supported by sources. During the early phase of the Iraq war, Iraq was not independent butg occupied by Coalition forces, but was not part of another country. TFD (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
TVH claims there are no secondary sources that classify U.S. territories of 2013 as “separate personalities” -- to which source(s) are you referring? Also, you have yet to tell us how you would define the territories. So far you've told us they are not independent, not incorporated, but are only owned by the US, yet not part of it -- even though they are not independent or part of anything else. Seems all you've done is drag your feet through the Insular cases, such as they are, in terms of coming up with any definition. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I provided the source in my original posting. See "Study of W. Michael Reisman, Myers S. McDougal Professor of International Law, Yale Law School and Robert D. Sloane, Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law", U.S. Congress, 2006, pp. 120, 136, 149ff.[7] This is now the third time that I have presented the source on this page. Obviously you have no interest in anything other editors say. TFD (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Direct quotes support "include territory" from this Reisman-McDougal-Sloane reference, sourced here for the first time. And like the previous Lawson-Sloane cites on U.S. Talk, no "exclude territory" editor dare quote directly from them, because they are "include territories" secondary sources. There are no "exclude territories" secondary sources. Here are the "include territories" quotes on p.120, 136 and 149ff.:
_ p.120. Puerto Rican referenda November 14, 1993 and December 13, 1998 “failed to provide a consensus to change the status quo [U.S. commonwealth]." Most of the world appears “to view its situation as ‘acceptable’, or to view whatever problems may exist there as essentially benign.” The third concluding point is that the general response in the United Nations, elites and majority, see U.S.-PR commonwealth as “adequate under contemporary law. Only a small minority appears to view the relationship as unlawful per se.” WP:FRINGE
_ p.136. Free association with the U.S., under international law, the report sees three possibilities. A) independent international statehood B) formal independence of internal affairs and domestic C) internationally CNMI and Puerto Rico are actually a part of the U.S., not independent states, much as “the constituent states of the United States” are not independent states internationally.
_ p. 149 footnote. “The existence of the right of a people to self-determination … is considered a principle of international law”. --- The importance of the 1993 and 1998 referendums for status quo U.S. commonwealth. The very reason the conclusions of Lawson and Sloane previously cited are important, “whatever the theoretical scope of the Insular cases doctrine … Puerto Ricans by statute or judicially [have] virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states.” (Lawson and Sloan, Boston Coll. Law Re. 2009, p.1162). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Sloane, please.
A month and a half ago, TFD introduced an article by professors Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review. Gary Lawson and Robert D. Sloane, Puerto Rico’s Legal status reconsidered Boston College Law Review, 2009. By international law, “states are generally free as to the manner in which, domestically, they … meet their international obligations”, whether “direct reception” by free association, … "legislation, common law, or administrative action as the means. These are matters for each state to determine for itself according to its own constitutional practices.” (p.1159).
_ _ Lawson and Sloane show Puerto Rico is “a part of the U.S.” by U.N Assembly Res. 567 first two tests. 1 ) the authors stipulate “Puerto Rico manifestly … enjoys virtually complete autonomy over its local affairs (p.1160). 2 ) “Resolution 567 does not purport to require complete equality in constitutional guarantees”. In practice -- whatever the theoretical scope of the Insular Cases doctrine -- the U.S. “has in FACT vested Puerto Ricans by statute or judicially, "virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states", consistently expanding privileges since 1952. (p.1162)
_ _ 3 ) Resolution 567 requires the equal participation "in any changes in the constitutional system of the State,” and given Puerto Rican territorial representation in Congress equivalent to previous territories made states, "it is not clear that the absence of the [presidential] franchise per se constitutes a violation of U.S. international obligations under the 1952 bilateral compact" (p.1163) In Lawson and Stone, we see the people of Puerto Rico deliberately chose NOT to become a state, mainly because of the socioeconomic circumstances of the island (p.1164-5).
_ _ In 2012 a plebiscite on political union with the U.S. was held with 80% participation. Sixty-six percent of the total vote chose existing commonwealth or enhanced commonwealth, and with "statehood" votes, 96% chose some form of UNION to be “a part of the U.S.” Only 4% chose INDEPENDENCE by the U.N.-ballot-style choices. WP article should reflect official U.S. government publications and the self-determination of 96% of the people of Puerto Rico in 2012 -- For those editors who will not concede U.S.G. as a legitimate nation-state in 2013, they might forbear "excluding territories" from the U.S. federal union at Wikipedia, at least until the Puerto Rican vote changes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Sparrow, please.
Secondary sources to “include territories” include political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow, co-author with constitutional historian Sanford Levinson at University of Texas of the Anthology The Louisiana Purchase and American expansion; Two weeks ago at Defining the United States of America I explained the Sparrow reference context, from p. 240. “The reality of U.S. possessions ... the existence of the [U.S.] territories can be reconciled with the notion of a federal nation-state." --- That context DOES support “include territories”, with the direct quote, “'At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories” (p.232), the context of territories WITHIN a federal nation-state. "Exclude territories" editors are precisely those without historical context whom Sparrow would inform, were they to read his article among the scholars from other academic disciplines.
Five weeks ago at Talk: "Include territories" executive orders TFD says Sparrow's "federal state" does not include territories, but Sparrow’s “federal state” does not include places that are territories in 1803, but it grows to include them by a kind of “democratic imperialism” until, "At present, the [U.S.] includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories ..." but FTD cherrypicks to leave out historical growth, misuses historical concepts explaining growth and asserts madeup that somewhere else in the anthology, some as yet unnamed author says "PR is not part of the U.S." Cherrypicking and madeup is not proper wiki-editing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
“United States and Puerto Rico” union
Editors wonder whether 'insular case' courts overturned by congressional organic acts making citizens are observed by subsequent courts as being overturned. Yes they are. Others speculate whether a google search hit on “united states and puerto rico” yields lexicographic synthesis to “exclude territories”. No, all do not.
_ _ At the five-year standing unchallenged federal district court holding in the Consejo v. Rullan Case we see, --- Congressional acts evidence that Congress for over a century has not intended to govern ... Puerto Rico 'temporarily'. To the contrary, the ties between the United States and Puerto Rico have significantly strengthened to the effect that Puerto Rico ... resembles that of a federated State of the Union, which necessarily includes U.S. citizenship and the presence of an Article III court.” (p.20-21).
_ (iii) “Puerto Rico no longer remains an unincorporated territory. … From a juridical perspective, the Puerto Rico of present is, thus, one which Congress, ... has chiseled in the very image and likeness of the United States system of government and laws. “[The] purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union.” Congress “has in fact incorporated the territory.” (p.24,26)
_ _ So far in the discussion, we have one “United States and Puerto Rico” hit to say a U.S. territory is congressionally and judicially incorporated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
An unpublished district court opinion? Really? Not just that, but one that was reversed on appeal to the First Circuit? VH, it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You need to engage in reasonable discussion and proceed towards a compromise with the rest of us. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
"Organic acts" provide for government organization of territories, they do not incorporate them into the U.S. I have explained this to you many times and wonder how you continue to misinterpret American statutes. Please look up the terms before returning to your argument. TFD (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1.No google search hit can be found at "United States and Puerto Rico" to support "exclude territories" in our discussion to date. Without secondary sources, only unsourced assertion there must be something somewhere to support unsourced editor synthesis. On inspection, one hit on "U.S. and PR" search says Congress has incorporated Puerto Rico into the U.S..
2.The case is published as a holding of the First District Court as linked. No source says there was a challenge to Conseljo v. Rullen. Were there to be a challenge, inspecting the linked published case will enable editors to see if the reversal entailed re-interpretation of "Congress has in fact incorporated Puerto Rico." But there is only unsourced "exclude territories" speculation that there may have been a challenge, and no link for inspection.
3.Organic acts for territories authorizeStep 1. military governors in places without nationals or citizens, Step 2. presidentially appointed governors with legislatures at pleasure with nationals, Step 3. elected governors, self-governing citizens with representation in Congress. Using reliable secondary sources, I have explained how since 1805 possession becomes unincorporated territory, incorporated territory and admitted states.
_ _ Editors are encouraged to look beyond tertiary sources to encounter a wider, broadening academic world of secondary sources. Primary sources are properly best used by Wiki-editors to illustrate secondary sources. Secondary sources of scholars and government reports to congress show the five organized U.S. territories of 2013 are constitutionally "equivalent to states", that is incorporated, the states are a part of the U.S. federal republic, today's U.S. territories are constitutionally equivalent. There are no secondary sources to the contrary, only unsourced editor synthesis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It's unpublished: it does not appear in the Federal Supplement. District Court cases are not precedential. Finally, the entire line of decisions in the overall case you are citing was reversed by the 1st Circuit. 551 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2008). Please don't waste everybody's time with this incomplete research in the future. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken. It is published Consejo v. Lorenzo 551 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2008). Editors can read it, findings are on page 49. District holding related to Puerto Rico’s protection as a state under the Eleventh Amendment was AFFIRMED. Treatment of Puerto Rico as a state under the Medicaid regime was AFFIRMED in debt indemnification relief. Only the administration of a formula under “a confused state of affairs” was reversed in light of Health Secretary information AFTER the district ruling, and remanded. Another source by "exclude" editors which, UPON INSPECTION is "include territories".
_ _ What reply should I make to careless, mistaken and personal attacks. For those with the background and goodwill to do it, Please read available law in the future before making unsourced postings. Wiki-love does not permit editors admonishing other contributing writer-editors to stop legal research and study from sources readily available to all online. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
That isn't the case you linked to above. You only just linked to it now that I gave you the citation. Way to go. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You did not read your reference. It supports "include territories". Why did you say I could not find it? Still no sources discredited to "include territories, still no sources to "exclude territories". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Numbers indeed. On the one hand, one-hundred year-old dictionaries, digests and encyclopedias without reference to U.S. territories of 2013 and editor constructs, inferences and synthesis with no direct quotes from tertiary, primary or secondary sources to “exclude territories”. _ _ _ On the other hand, to “include territories” in the 2013 U.S. federal union, legal scholars, constitutional historians, political scientists, U.S.G. government reports and secondary sources, and primary documents form U.S. statutes, executive orders and jurisprudence within the last 20-years and 14 current linked examples of U.S.G. usage "including territories".
_ _ Here we have editors Mendaliv, RightCowLeftCoast, and Gwillhickers crafting consensus language to accommodate two dichotomies: ( I ) republics-with-territories and monarchies-with-territories and ( II ) U.S. colonial territories of 1912 and U.S. incorporated territories of 2013. _ _ _ I have stated my agreement with all three consensus efforts at various stages of drafting, because all three have at times incorporated the legitimacy of the U.S.G. claim that “Today the U.S. includes 50 states, the District and [five organized territories].”
_ _ The only push-back this month is from those editors who will not admit any representation of the U.S.G. self-report of the five organized territories that comprise “a part of itself” in 2013. For those who would read the source links, even TFD source on the U.N. calls the faction in the Assembly "only a small minority". It is a continued opposition on this page which I consider WP:fringe in the face of three consensus attempts that is inclusive of the U.S.G. view of itself, but without explicitly endorsing it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm unclear, what year is it again? --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, 100-year old Insular Cases that secondary sources report were superseded fifty years ago should not govern wiki-editor policy for today's online encyclopedia for a general international readership. We should choose one of the three consensus attempts which bridge (I) republics-with-territories and monarchies-with territories and (II) U.S. colonial territories of Insular Cases and U.S. territories included in "today's U.S." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
-whoosh- --Golbez (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the United States, Puerto Rico and most nations accept the status quo that PR is a "commonwealth" in free association with the U.S. does not mean that PR is part of the U.S. You continue to provide facts then argue from them to a conclusion rather than provide sources that support your reasoning. Also, there is no distinction between monarchies and republics when it comes to incorporating external territories. BTW can you cite the Supreme Court decision that overturned the insular cases. TFD (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1) See Republic of France article, includes overseas territories with citizens and representation in National Assembly, as should U.S. article for its republic including territories with citizens and representation in Congress, there are five with "irrevocable" citizenship, though WP:fringe editors deny the legitimacy of naturalized citizenship and citizenship by blood as provided by Congress in Samoa .
2) The Insular Cases say, Congress MAY incorporate the Spanish-speaking populations then ruled under military governors without U.S. national status or citizenship, not the judge-made law TFD demands in a WP:madeup U.S. history. The Supreme Court in Rassmussen said Alaska was incorporated without "express" incorporation by Congress enacting citizenship of the soil. TFDs secondary source Lawson and Sloane says Congress made Puerto Rico constitutionally "equivalent to states" in 1950 and 1952, see the link above, search on the directly quoted phrase. States are constitutionally incorporated.
3) At Consejo v. Rullan Case, the court observed, “[The] purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union.” Congress “sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory.” p.26. TFD claimed WP:goodfaith? the case is overturned in a published ruling, to the effect that PR is not incorporated, but I cannot find the appeal, and no link is provided. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
TVH, drop the stick, back away. Stop using overturned district court cases to assert your points. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand how difficult this can be. My own background includes graduate level study jointly offered by a law school and history department. You misunderstand the use of "overturned" in the law, here relative to Puerto Rico as a state constitutionally relative to the Eleventh Amendment AFFIRMED, and as a state in law relative to statutes establishing Medicaid AFFIRMED.
_ _ Consejo v. Lorenzo 551 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2008). Appeal from Gustavo A. Gelpi, district judge before Torruella, Selya and Lipez, circuit judges. August 20, 2012. For the reasons we have explained above, we affirm the district court's ruling on the Eleventh Amendment claims. We also affirm its ruling regarding the plaintiffs' request for debt indemnification relief. We reverse the district court's judgments regarding the formula used to calculate the Commonwealth's reimbursement obligations and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. p.49. I will be happy to consult with you collaboratively to explain further and to answer any additional questions you may have.
_ _ States are incorporated in the U.S., the U.S. territories are incorporated in the U.S.--- as Congress intends, and manifestly apparent in the constitutional practice of 2008, as we find in this published circuit court case. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying Puerto Rico is a state? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Puerto Rico is treated in federal district and circuit courts as made by congress constitutionally (13th Amendment) and at law (Medicaid) "as a state", states are incorporated, Puerto Rico is incorporated. I find no contrary law or jurisprudence since 2000, what does your index say for sources? One was wrong, misreporting "affirmed" as "reversed". We have to read each one from a tertiary source before we can responsibly use it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
So long as there is the hypothetical option for PR to become independent of the U.S., it is not incorporated. older ≠ wiser 20:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You have no source, but I have one. By statute and by jurisprudence, Puerto Rico is incorporated into the U.S. as is a state. "Whatever the theoretical scope of the Insular cases doctrine … Puerto Ricans by statute or judicially [have] virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states.” (Lawson and Sloan, Boston Coll. Law Re. 2009, p.1162). The states are incorporated, the MODERN U.S. territories "virtually the same" as states, are incorporated a part of the U.S.
_ _ Only wiki-editors say, modern "U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S.", there is no such quote in tertiary, primary or secondary sources. Even if there is a legal "hypothetical", what is politically "a part of the country" is determined by Congressional organic acts and the Immigration and Naturalization Act as sourced. The Court says citizenship in the territories is "irrevocable". In the MODERN era it expands constitutional privileges to territories more than organic acts previously for incorporated AZ, NM, AK and HI territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That Puerto Ricans have virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges is not the same as being non-virtually incorporated. PR is not a state and there remains a fundamental difference in status. older ≠ wiser 16:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You have no source, but I have one. Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow, The Louisiana Purchase and American expansion, 2005, p. 240. “The reality of U.S. possessions ... the existence of the [U.S.] territories can be reconciled with the notion of a federal nation-state."
_ _ 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica limits the U.S. to 50 states without DC, DC in "territories". Now, that state-status formulation of yours is in the Noleander proposal, since it encompasses BOTH a tertiary source of 1911 and scholarly sources current in 2011 included in the introduction for a current WP country-article. What do you think about the proposal? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The complete paragraph reads, "The reality of the United State' possessions within and without the several states, however, has not been integrated into thinking about the American political system. Rather the consistent premise has been that the United States has a federal system, a national polity consituted in its entirety by its component states. Writers on the U.S. political system ignore how the existence of the territories and U.S. government lands can be reconciled with the notion of a federal nation-state."[8] TheVirginiaHistorian has parsed together pieces of separate sentences to misrepresent what Sparrow wrote. TFD (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Sparrow is trying to add historical perspective, "territories since 1805". TFD would make Sparrow's characterization of political science without historical perspective, the narrowly "consistent premise ... [U.S. is] constituted in its entirety by its component states" -- as Sparrow's own, but it is not. Sparrow would have us understand, were we to read his words, "the existence of the [U.S.] territories can be reconciled with the notion of a federal nation-state." and “"At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories."
_ _ Does TFD now wish to drop DC from the lead to conform to the earlier "consistent premis" of political scientists without historical perspective, or would he join Sparrow's definition as directly quoted from a source of 2005, the U.S. includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories in stage III, incorporated preparation for statehood? (Sparrow, paperback, p.233) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
One should not explain what Sparrow means by misrepresenting a specific paragraph in his article. No one btw has questioned DC's inclusion in the US. Once the area was incorporated into the US as part of Maryland and Virginia, only a constitutional amendment can remove it, unlike the case of unincorporated territories. TFD (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Sparrow says, historical development informs political science. Territories CAN be a part of a federal republic, previous treatment by political scientists excluding them are mistaken. He begins with Louisiana Purchase, territory NOT previously U.S. incorporated. You misrepresent this history as though territories are not incorporated before statehood, which is not what Sparrow says, that is your misrepresentation.
_ _ Sparrow charts the three stages of territorial DEVELOPMENT prior to admission to statehood. Possessions, unincorporated territories, and the "third stage" preparation for statehood, a territorial member of congress, citizenship, elected republican government -- made those territories as incorporated as the Northwest Territories. Sparrow notes the third stage "legacy of the Northwest Territory", did not obtain in 1910, but Sparrow does say today (2005), the U.S. INCLUDES territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean. Sparrow does not say territorial status of 1910 is 2005, you misrepresent him.
_ _ State Department secondary source interprets congressional immigration and naturalization act (INA) to say in 1985 four organized territories are a part of the nation, and ONLY Samoa and Swains Island remain as "overseas territories". GAO secondary source on constitutional status of U.S. territories says N.Marianas, Puerto Rico and Samoa are a part of the U.S. with their own self-governing written constitutions in 1995. You have no secondary source to exclude territories in 2013, only misrepresentation and ad hominem attacks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Notes
^The populations of the territories are American citizens or American nationals of the U.S., and are subject to laws of the Federal government while there is various legislature that distinguish these territories from those of the fifty states.
^Depending on context, a reference to "United States" may encompass just the fifty states and District of Columbia, or may additionally encompass some or all of the territories and possessions.
Requesting compromise suggestion
Is there an editor that believes an appropriate compromise can be suggested that all participants can agree on?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we've got 3 of our group who have agreed on a wording and rough explanatory note above. I believe the wording is entirely consistent with the arguments presented by both TVH and TFD... just that it doesn't absolutely foreclose the opposing position and doesn't use their chosen sources.
"The United States of America ... is a country, governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states a federal district and several territories."
(explanatory note) "Depending on context, a reference to "United States" may encompass just the fifty states and District of Columbia, or may additionally encompass some or all of the territories and possessions."
I have suggested that we make the general claim that states, territories ad DC make up the USA with a footnote articulating the legislative differences. Right now the 'big' difference of opinion seems to be over the 'small' distinction between 'ownership' and 'part of', yet in both cases, 'ownership' and being 'part of' both involve federal rule, Congressional oversight, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Compromise? How about this?
The United States of America ... is a Federal Republic which governs 50 states, several territories and a Capital district all of which are controlled to one degree or another by the Federal government, a Congress and the U.S. Constitution..[note2]
Or we might say..
The United States of America ... is a country, in possession of 50 states, several territories and a Capital district all of which are governed by a by the Federal government, a Congress and the U.S. Constitution..[note2]
I would prefer the latter because of the argument that got brought up above that "The United States of America . . . is a federal republic . . . ." triggers one of the contexts for including the territories under the principles in Am. Jur. and C.J.S., that is, when referring to the sovereign or government itself, the term United States tends to refer to everything under federal law. Saying "The United States of America . . . is a country . . . ." avoids that problem. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
How can you write, the U.S. "is a country, governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states a federal district and several territories.... Depending on context, a reference to "United States" may encompass just the fifty states and District of Columbia, or may additionally encompass some or all of the territories and possessions." That is contradictory. Either the territories are parts of the U.S. or are not. We cannot say they are unless we can establish that that is consensus opinion. And of course we need sources for any claims we make. TFD (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Insert : This can be asserted very easily, as has been pointed out to you several times now. You are merely transfixed on the context of Insular cases and are ignoring the greater contexts, that the territories are controlled by the federal government, are subject to Congressional oversight and that they are bound by the U.S. Constitution itself; so in a general context, it can easily be said they belong to the United States and therefore part of it for purposes of the lede. Again, any distinguishing legislature can be articulated with a foot note and/or in the body of the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
We as Wikipedians are not going to change the facts TFD. That much is clear. No amount of consensus can seperate or bring together sovereignty issues. The debate has gone on long enough and strayed very far. Lets bring it back please. So, here is what I am going to do. I am going to ask a question and all editors will answer with a simple yes or no, then sign. Any comments beyond that will be removed or collapsed. Anyone may answer this question but we do need all participants to weigh in. We will then move on from there.
Agree. As I've said even before the debate reached this noticeboard, it has gone on long enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer if Collect did not elaborate on their vote below, or we should all elaborate, since I left context out because it was requested to be a strict "yes" or "no". If his elaboration stands this will turn into just another battleground. --Golbez (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Collect, your input is appreciated but could you move or hide the commentary in the voting section?
Agree. If Amadscientist is going to remove "Sometimes" responses, it destroys the legitimacy of this entire procedure to permit Collect's statement to stand. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
My comments were removed, so should Collect's. I am curious however about his comment that congressional legislation can overturn constitutional law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. My understanding is that only a constitutional amendment can do that. TFD (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Likewise, Bkonrad has ruined it by saying what I wanted to say but didn't because I had to condense it down to a boolean. :P --Golbez (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course I am removing Collects comments as well as any !vote that strays from the ground rules. I just have to sleep and eat like the rest of you.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This is the absolute wrong question to ask to get to the bottom of this dispute precisely because it frames it as a binary question when the answer is "it depends". Insisting on a binary response will only more deeply entrench the polarization. You are of course welcome to waste your time and effort in whatever manner pleases you, but don't expect anything to come of this approach. older ≠ wiser 21:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Odd thing to say when this is the exact dispute as filed. But the point is, I only want to see what each editor believes on that single simple question to leave anything but that question out. Then I will see where we need to move to from there.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
@TFD. Article VI. “Supreme law of the land” is constitution, congressional statute and treaties. Supreme Court does not make law, though it may direct redress with the force of law; on demonstrated harm done, it may review and overturn statutes inconsistent with the constitution. The Court ruled Congress constitutionally defines the extent of the country in territorial organic acts and the Immigration and Naturalization Act, as previously sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The Supreme Court interprets the constitution. See Marbury v. Madison 1803. TFD (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
... as it applies to some statute where enforcement does harm sufficient, sustained or general enough that the issue is ripe for deliberation. The Court does not simply willy nilly hold forth emanating judge-made law. But what they have done is allow Congress the political decision of what is to be a part of the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Poll
Does the phrase "United States" also refer to territories such as Puerto Rico?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be everyone. User:Chipmunkdavis has not participated so we wont wait for a response from the editor.
We are evenly split on the opinion that territories are refered to when using the phrase "United States". My next question (Again, please answer with yes or no with no additional comments):
Do you believe the main issue with this dispute is references and sourcing? (Again, please answer with yes or no with no additional comments.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
United States: Volunteer Noleander, recommended resolution
I've read the above comments, the Talk page conversation, and several of the sources. Based on that data, my recommended resolution for this issue is as follows:
The term "United States" has several usages, including (a) the member of the world's family of nations (includes territories); (b) the terrain; and (c) the 50 federated states (excludes territories).
In spite of the multiple usages, there is strong consensus that Wikipedia should contain only one article on the United States.
The article should describe all usages, but - for clarity - the lead needs to focus on a single usage. Other usages can be described in detail later in the body.
The lead should focus on the broadest, most prominent usage. That is the United States considered as a member of the family of nations (including the territories). That usage is what most readers will expect to see when they visit the article; and is also the broadest usage, in the sense that it includes the other usages.
Thus, the lead's first sentence should start with a definition that includes the territories; and it should be immediately followed by a statement such as "Sometimes the term 'United States' is use to refer only to the 50 states, and exclude the territories".
Here is the lead I recommend:
The United States of America ... [abbreviations] ... is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states, a federal district, and other territories. Sometimes the term 'United States' is used to refer only to the 50 states.
I do not see any significant impact to other US-related articles by changing the lead this way. The vast majority of articles are not impacted by whether or not territories are included. For those articles that are sensitive to the inclusion/exclusion of territories, those articles should already clarify their context by explaining if they include/exclude the territories. Each US-related article, on a case-by-case basis, can adopt its own convention based on what the sources (of that particular article) use, and what makes most sense for readers.
The alternative usages of the term "United States" can be elaborated on in the body. For example, an entire subsection could be included that describes the usage where the term excludes the territories.
The Untied States article includes many statistics, both in the Infobox and in the body. Each statistic should indicate (usually in a footnote) whether or not it includes the territories. Because the sources are beyond our control, we cannot require, nor expect, the statistics to uniformly include (or exclude) the territories.
I present this proposed resolution in the hope that it provides a path forward for all the parties. DRN is not a binding process - feel free to adopt or reject this proposal, or to modify it as desired. Bear in mind that consensus does not mean everyone loves the resolution - consensus just means everyone can live with the resolution. --Noleander (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
That second sentence is very awkward, and that kind of sentiment belongs in a footnote at most. Also, I can almost guarantee that the vast majority of articles that refer to facts and figures about the U.S. omit the territories, and do not say they are omitting, because omitting the territories has simply been the default mode. So I still maintain a vast amount of work would have to be done if one is redefining the country, as this intro is, despite trying to waffle on the subject. I still think the status quo wording (relying on "also possesses") is the best, as the issue can be dealt with lower in the article. To change it from "possesses" to "includes" requiring ensuring that they are included in all the facts and figures, and also defining just what is included. When you're talking about what is included then you can't waffle, you have to be specific. --Golbez (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I considered putting the 2nd sentence ("Sometimes the term 'United States' is used to refer only to the 50 states") in a footnote but instead put it in the lead's text for two reasons (a) the magnitude of this issue within WP talk pages & DRN shows that it is a significant detail that needs to be prominently mentioned in the article; and (b) readers will want to know this, especially readers from outside the US. As for the alternate wording "The US also possesses territories ..." - I think that is a muddy, weasel-word solution; in other words, the debate would resurface again and again, because some editors would want to change that to push the territories into the 1st "includes" sentence. Better is to pick one usage (includes territories), state that in the 1st sentence; then acknowledge alternate usages in the 2nd sentence. --Noleander (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I can live with this. I'd like some further guidance on sourcing, however, because I see that becoming a problem in implementing this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)(stricken per my and other editors' concerns expressed below, and patently unresolved sourcing issues. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC))
What is your reasoning that the broader definition is the "most prominent usage"? Both American Jurisprudence and Sparrow say it is not. For example, a standard textbook, the Encyclopedia of World Constitutions, Infobase Publishing, 2006, p. 980, "The United States of America is a federal state comprising 50 autonomous regional provinces, called states, plus the District of Columbia, thich serves as the capital."[9] Much of the information on demographics, geography, government, etc. refers to the republic, which is fine if that is how the subject of the article is defined, but would have to be qualified. Also, how does it address TheVirginiaHistorian's view that only five of the territories are part of the U.S.? TFD (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
My reasoning is based on my assessment of the sources presented on the Talk page and here in the DRN case. I understand that different editors can read the sames sources and come to different conclusions. An independent factor is the fact that the "includes territories" usage is broader (i.e. includes the other usages) and that also leant some weight. As for the "only five" territories, I don't think the lead should mention any specific quantity of territories, so addressing "five" was not a major consideration. Again, the body of the article can have an entire section discussion the various usages of the term "United States", and how some usages include zero territories, some usages include five, and some usages include more. But that is a matter for the body, not the lead. --Noleander (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This is fairly connected to my point above asking for more guidance on sourcing. You argue that you've assessed the sources... would you mind showing your work a bit? My take has been that the uses are likely on parity, and there are few if any sources that directly assert one definition to the exclusion of the other, rather than merely use one definition as a matter of convenience (statistics, some administrative publications), or as a means of achieving political and rhetorical ends (statutes, congressional records, some administrative publications). I also think your argument of the territorial inclusion wording as inclusive of more definitions ignores the fact that one of the competing groups of sources is explicitly excluded by such wording. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The point of consensus-building is to try to find a middle-ground that is acceptable to all parties. My recommendation carries no special weight, because DRN volunteers have no special power or privilege. Indeed, I probably know less about US history than any of the parties. The value of the volunteer is that we are neutral, and have no bias one way or another, and can bring a fresh perspective. Parties are free to disregard the recommendation or modify it. At this point in the process, it is best if the parties simply state whether or not they can live with the recommendation. If they cannot live with it, they could consider suggesting alternative wordings, and see if an alternative can find consensus. -Noleander (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The compromise offered by Noleander is something I can live with.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Noleander's proposed lede statement is more than adequate and very similar to the suggested statement I offered previously. Well done Noleander! Many thanks for your efforts, and many thanks to Amadscientist also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
@Noleander: Then how do you propose any of this be sourced? You say yourself you've looked at the sources. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry about that at the moment. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Your concern is noted in your original comments when you agreed to the compromise. There is no reason to repeat questions you have already asked. If the volunteer is ready to answer you that is wonderful, if not...just wait until all participants have weighed in before beginning a disussion anew.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have dropped off notifications about the proposed compromise to the other prticipants.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I was only tangentially involved because I wandered into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America. I have some comments in response to Virginia Historian on my talk page... and after reading this, the only clear solution is an RfC, and one with some limits on how much regular participants rehash these same arguments. The general debate is impenetrable for anyone not intimately involved in it. There's also a lot of unnecessary focus on old legal cases while ignoring the really obvious fact that we base titles, and thus definitions, on how they're commonly used. The U.S. government uses various definitions of the U.S. in various places, because context matters. I'm fine with the discrete discussion about the lead to the United States article, but the ambitions in this debate appear to go well beyond that. The obsession and walls of text about legal cases is misguided and misses the entire point of this debate, as far as I can tell. Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Noleander, could you please answer the following questions:
1. How did you determine that the definition including territories is most common when the two sources discussing usage, American Jursiprudence and Sparrow, say it is not?
2. Why do you say that the constitutional republic includes 50 states, D.C. and the territories, when no source provided defines the republic to include overseas territories?
3. What type of entity is the republic plus territories? The only source provided describes it as an "empire".
_ _ "and other territories" can be sourced at (1) GAO 1997 report, “U.S. Insular Areas U.S. Constitution, p.8-9. and (2) Congressional INA statute in State Department, the nation includes four organized territories, and Samoa ... the last “outlying possession" as of 1986, p5. For Sparrow “include [5] territories” as of 2005, see #Dr. Sparrow, please subsection above.
_ _ "Entities" such as France and the U.S. are “republics plus territories”. They grant citizenship, autonomous government and national representation, each according to its own constitutional practice, see #Dr. Sloane, please subsection above.
_ _ The United States as a matter of history and constitutional practice, has taken possessions and incorporated territories into its republic 1805-2005 as a “democratic empire” forming an “Empire of Liberty” in “perpetual union”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You guys keep continuing the same thing across whatever forum... do you have no desire to actually resolve this issue? I know you're both smart enough to know what the other is saying, which makes the fact you guys keep going back and forth all the more annoying. I have no interest in reading through most of what you've posted, but I've read through way more than I should of of what you've posted. Can't you guys at least boil down your disagreement to some simple points? Try working down. Because I know this throw everything i read at the wall strategy is nice because you can pick something up off the floor and fling it back when they misidentify it, but at this point it seems clear that strategy wont' work, right?
We all have our opinions, but I can't for the life of me find where you two are diametrically opposed on anything. I get the sense you like to talk and argue. Please put that energy to better use. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
[Housekeeping exemption.] Okay, I'm game, though if three editors make five points, it takes a bit of doing. I can post generally twice a day, some days not at all. We each last responded with a total of eleven lines on my browser in this cycle, which is an improvement for both of us. What should be a goal, six lines per post? (this text reads three lines on my browser.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's start with this... whoever the current DRN person is... they boil down some essential questions an have the resident editors answer those there. That seems to me to be a start. Shadowjams (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. As to answer format more terse than a Twitter post. The territories poll first three: 'No', 'Sometimes', 'Yes in 2013' were hardly “walls of text”. They were then DRN forced to: 'No', 'No', 'Yes'. Happily the Noleander proposed lede seems to have addressed two of three first-responder responses without a change in the polling answer yes-no-only format. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
That was the point of my "ground rules". Just to keep the comments out and distill opinion to the barest minimum. But Noleander also had a compromise that might work, so...we continue with both approaches. My above "questions with single word answer" approach is still ongoing. Give both a chance and lets see where this leads. Two heads are better than one.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Meh. to Noleander’s proposed lede. It incorrectly implies that territories are a constituent part of the federal republic. One nexus of the dispute is that the definition of U.S. is not always equivalent to the federal republic. Expansive definitions of the "United States" includes territories in some contexts. In most contexts, the definition of the federal republic is limited to the 50 states and DC and the territories are possessions or administrative holdings of the federal government and not an integral part of the republic. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Technically, can your search narrow by date after 2010 census, or limit sources to scholarly and government secondary publications? "Administrative holdings of the federal government" means appointed governors, the search provided a source for appointed governors of which territories? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not see it as a compromise since it claims that the territories are part of the U.S., which is the subject of the dispute. Also, when we use terms such as "sometimes" we should have a source that describes it that way, otherwise WP:WEASEL applies. It would be helpful to explain what those times are, that is, under the U.S. constitution and international law. Also, it should include D.C. TFD (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No. I've stricken my endorsement above per the unaddressed concerns articulated by multiple editors in this section, as well as the patently unresolved sourcing issues. While sourcing isn't the origin of this dispute, it's been a major point of contention by some parties, perhaps incorrectly. We've been dancing around with a bunch of primary government sources (statutes, publications, and soforth) that are either only useful in some narrow sense, or are so worded for blatantly obvious political reasons, neither of which is appropriate for Wikipedia. In the "include" side, that leaves Sparrow (which is disputed); in the exclude side, I don't know what that leaves; and in the ambiguity side, that leaves Am. Jur. and C.J.S. (which I believe are getting dismissed because people here don't have ready access to them, and are instead interpreting the court cases they source to). What I want to know is who here has actually read the Am. Jur. and C.J.S. articles? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I read both when I was in law school. Shadowjams (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
In graduate school, I just read the introductions, how to use them and articles on congressional apportionment. Pretty good beginning for something I knew nothing about, like the law school resource guide suggested. I regret you were misled when the tertiary source misreported "upheld" as "reversed". You deserve to be better served by the sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
edit-break2
TDF and Mendaliv, since you seem to be so knowledgeable in terms of particular contexts why don't you simply give us an example of how you think the lede statement should read, for a change? Apparently you are now the only participants that are unwilling to go along with anyone's suggestions and now you are endlessly engaging the volunteers with whose decision we agreed to accept after all views were discussed. Your endless arguments are selective and highly opinionated and are becoming a blur.., while ignoring the general considerations regarding the Federal government, Congress and the Constitution itself. Enough of this endless nit-picking, it's becoming disruptive. We need a compromise. Just give us an example of a lede statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Funny. I get the same impression of your arguments. Take what I suggested further above, and which was endorsed by multiple editors (yourself included). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Insert : At that juncture I offered two compromise statements after which you continued splitting hairs. The key word is compromise, with a foot note to articulate the distinguishing legislature. I once knew a lady who knew how to knit more than 100 different stitches, and she could go on endlessly about them all -- yet she had no idea how to use the different stitches to knit a sweater.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure where you're getting that impression. I tweaked your wording, you endorsed the tweak, and I was ready to end this. Others continued to debate, made spurious points, and I entered the discussion. Problem? If you want to play the blame game, I can go all day... but I don't think that's what any of us are here for. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
And with all due respect, watch who you lump together and accuse of nitpicking. I proposed a reasonable, broad, and reliably sourced solution above. Oops, but my source is tertiary. I explain that isn't a problem. Oops, but this other source says X. I explain that other source deals with a narrow context (statutes), or is a mere attestation of one definition (publications). Oops, but my source is based on a court case from the 40s; things are different in 2013. I explain how secondary and tertiary sources work; they're entitled to conduct their own research and draw their own conclusions, which is what we are citing. Oops, but a more recent court case says X. I explain that the holding was reversed, and the case itself is not precedent-setting. So who's nitpicking? I've seen nobody, repeat nobody, articulate a broad proposal with a basis in reliable sources that also satisfies WP:DUE. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Right.. and after all that you still don't give us an example of a lede statement. Seems if all the things you've discussed thus far amounted to anything concrete it would easily materialize into a lede statement. Notice it hasn't, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
See my response above. "The current wording of the lead for the United States is fine. The U.S. "is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district.... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean.""[10]TFD (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Mendaliv, that was then, and it was TFD who objected -- and when Noleander offers something similar, you first go along, then you strike it and then you and TFD continue on and on. Apologies for my tone but this debate has gone around in circles too long. Could you simply please enter your lede suggestion again here, and then put Noleanders suggestion under it and combine them? Once again any distinguishing differences can be explain in a foot note. Can we do that and take another poll? Noleander, everyone, do we have a plan? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
(footnote) Depending on context, a reference to "United States" may encompass the fifty states and District of Columbia only, some of the territories and possessions, or all of them.
I really don't think there's any "combination" to be done with Noleander's proposal, since the main difference is (1) use of a footnote, and (2) saying the country consists of X rather than the republic consists of X, and I believe both of those concessions are absolutely essential to satisfying those on the side of exclusion and those on the side of ambiguity. The entire purpose of this is to satisfy TFD's concern without getting into excessive detail, and I think it's simple enough that everyone else should be satisfied. I can endorse this wording without reservation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Does it matter that the tertiary source misreported “upheld” as “reversed” on the constitutional point demonstrating Puerto Rico incorporated, and so misled Mendaliv, then it led him to believe it could not be sourced online so he assured us all there was no published access to the case? Is there a fact-checker service for disputes? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a factchecker board, can you provide the reference? TFD (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh god here we go again. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Alas, overcome by events. There will be another time, I am sure. Looks like we might have a means to the intro consensus below. In retrospect, I'd have used a factchecker board in January; now, it may not be to any good purpose. Great-grandmother's test for contention at table: "Is it true, is it kind, is it necessary?" TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Noleander proposal #2
Some good points are raised above. Here is another option which incorporates some of the ideas from above:
This incorporates the "is a country" and "consists" wording suggested by Mendaliv, but includes the "only 50 states" concept in the lead's text, rather than in a footnote (because the multiplicities of usages are very important, yet many readers won't read footnotes). --Noleander (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Even if we accept the broader definition as the main topic, the sources do not describe it as a country or a federal consitutional republic. Also, the legal definition of the U.S. includes D.C. If we are going to use Sparrow's definition then we should follow his reasoning: "Despite the continued existence of the territories and the U.S. government lands, students of federalism and the U.S. political system chronically assume the United States to be a nation of states, operating under federal principles and constituted wholly by the separate states. How, then, did the United States come to encompass these persons and areas outside the sphere of its federal republic.... And at present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia, and, of source, the fifty states.... The reality of the United State' possessions within and without the several states, however, has not been integrated into thinking about the American political system. Rather the consistent premise has been that the United States has a federal system, a national polity constituted in its entirety by its component states. Writers on the U.S. political system ignore how the existence of the territories and U.S. government lands can be reconciled with the notion of a federal nation-state.(pp. 232,240)"[11]--The Four Deuces 05:46, 8 March 2013
That was my concern as well. I wonder if there has been some bias attached to the use of terms that is just causing many of the issues here.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Sparrow appears to be arguing that there is an American Empire, which is in some ways analogous to the multi-tiered systems that Golbez and perhaps others have mentioned with other countries. So PR is a part of the U.S., but it is not a part on equal footing with the states and so long as there is the hypothetical option for it to become independent, it is not an incorporated part of the U.S. No state of the union has any possibility of leaving the union (at least not without major disruptions to the constitution). That is fundamentally not the case with unincorporated territories. They are in an in-between status in which they enjoy some of the benefits of association with the U.S. but still remain fundamentally distinct. older ≠ wiser 14:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about all that. The issue is how to write the lede to state that status. Either they are a part of this nation or they are not and simply being occupied. Is that a preferable description then?--Amadscientist (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I know it is about the lead, but it is not amenable to a simplistic binary answer. older ≠ wiser 15:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that the broader definition says that the U.S. is a "nation". Sparrow never made that claim and instead called it an "empire." And the U.S. is not in occupation of its territories because it obtained lawful title through treaties with Spain and Denmark, and retains title with the consent of the indigenous populations. TFD (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Part of that is OR and somewhat innaccurate, but it is getting off topic. What i was trying to say is that, yes we could find sources to say some very critical things about this but we are just trying to find a way to add one line and we really shouldn't be trying to redefine what the US is. Thats all.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
What is OR and what is inaccurate? TFD (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Collect compromise proposal
The United States of America consists of the member states of that nation, a federal constitutional republic, as well as territories and commonwealths in association with that nation.
with appropriate wikilinks Collect (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: Since the territories at issue use US passports, and their citizens are US citizens (other than American Samoa who are US nationals - that is, part of the nation but the number of such is pretty small - under 70K), any further distinction verges on the silly. Collect (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not to the people that live there.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That sentence is too awkward to consider. --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The United States of America consists of its member states and federal district, as well as territories and commonwealths in association with that nation. It is a federal constitutional republic
Making it far simpler than the verion discussed a section above. I trust if this one is "too awkward" the other one surely is more so <g>. Note I do not specify "50" as that number historically has varied, and thus belongs further down in the lead and in the body. Collect (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I like the direction this is going, but using the term "in association" muddies the waters. Marshall Islands and Micronesia are states in free association with the U.S., but I think few would consider them as "part" of the U.S. Just to throw out another possibility:
Still a bit of an unwieldy sentence, but ... older ≠ wiser 15:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I object to "member states"; that implies they can come and go as they please, like with the UN and EU. In fact, I can find no sourcing that refers to them as "member states". --Golbez (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a fair point. How about substituting "fifty states" as in the current lead? The number does not fluctuate often and if it does, much more than only the lead would need to be re-worked. older ≠ wiser 15:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Suppose we use the "fifty" but remove the "U.S.A. or USA" bit as being "obvious acronyms which can be dealt with in a second sentence with 'America'" and leave it there? Then rather than "in various etc." tacked on to that first sentence, have that in a third simple sentence "The territories hold varying degrees of autonomy." IMHO, simpler = better. Collect (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Does this look right now? Collect (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
,
Saying that the republic governs the state is confusing. Are the states, D.C. and territories part of the nation or part of the republic? In any case, the claim is that the U.S. is larger than the nation or republic and includes the territories as well. Any lead should also mention the other definition. TFD (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
At some point in our lives, we will have to abide by WP:CONSENSUS and I suggest this is the most likely end point. Cheers - but argumentation after we get a consensus is not gonna help. Collect (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Collect, but I am just trying to clarify what you are saying. You say that the state is governed by a republic. What is the difference between the American state and the American republic? TFD (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry TFD - what I am saying is that this appears to be where the WP:CONSENSUS is. Wikipedia uses WP:CONSENSUS and that policy says we should seek to make compromises to get broad acceptance and not simply by nay-sayers. (When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accept the proposal) AFAICT, this is where the consensus lies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: I am using the "avoid !vote count confusion" belief in only !voting for the last one below as being themost likely to succeed. Collect (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus to use your wording which presumably is why you call it a "compromise proposal" and there are other wordings from which to choose. Now please be so kind as to explain the difference between the American state and the American republic. TFD (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
This section may have been overtaken by events. But it is fascinating how many different ways TFD dismisses the legitimacy of a federal republic in the modern era. There is no confusion. Citizens make a nation-state in a republic, not monarchs or places. The political apartheid of the Insular Cases, "separate and unequal" given by the same Court of "separate by equal", has been overturn by Congressional organic law. There are no inhabited places in the states, district and territories where citizens do not have basic human rights, local autonomous self-government and representation in the Congress.
_ _ I found my volume of Levinson too late to really weigh in. paperback, not-preview at Google p. 232-233, Sparrow says the legacy of the Northwest Territory territorial incorporation is "third phase in preparation for statehood", 60,000 eligible residents, citizenship, acceptance of the constitution, basic human rights, a written constitution and a republican government, congress approved each transition of the sequence to "equal footing" with the states. DID NOT obtain according to Sparrow in 1911, but it does NOW for all five organized U.S. territories by the same criteria according, to scholarly and government secondary sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"Citizens make a nation-state in a republic, not monarchs " Uhm...no. What I was reading last night is that as a republic citizens place a trust to a group or individual to govern. What you are describing is a democracy. The US is not a democracy. We arealso not really a constitutional republic. Sources debate that but do not confirm that. I think what I keep seeing is Federal republic. Just a sidenote...the article for constitutional republic was deleted for a very good reason and I just hope we understand that we have some wording that might be a speed bump to progress but that might not be the case.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I am aslo concerned that we are using the term "constitutional republic" when the article itself does not state that. It clearly states that the US is a Federal republic.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Suggested process to bring closure
I suggest that the next step is that we list all sensible proposed wordings for the lead and have parties endorse one or more that they find acceptable. We may find that one particular option is acceptable to nearly everyone. If there is not a single one that jumps out as most acceptable; we could winnow it down to the top 2 or 3 and repeat the process. Here are some candidate wordings from the discussion above (feel free to add more). For uniformity, I've placed ellipses (...) where the abbreviations and USA expansion would be placed. Since I'm a volunteer, I'll refrain from endorsing any. Again, the idea is that parties (or any editor) could put their name under multiple candidates that they find acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
By omitting the status quo, are you saying that's not a possible outcome? --Golbez (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
No, that was no my intention. Feel free to add the status quo, or any other alternative you feel may gain consensus. --Noleander (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Are we allowed to debate these and point out how horrible some of these are, or are they supposed to stand on their own? (specifically, 3, 5 and 7 are horrendous. The irony of sourcemeister VirginiaHistorian supporting #7, which uses the term "member states", which is never used in sourcing, is so palpable I was able to eat it for dinner.) --Golbez (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
We should refrain from debating the merits at this point, because many of them will not gain wide consensus, so any disucssion on those would be wasted. Let's wait another day or two and see if any other endorsements are posted. Then we can look and see if one emerges at the top; or if we need to narrow it down to the top 2 or 3 and repeat the process. If we do a second pass (on the top 2 or 3) we can debate the merits of those finalists at that time. How does that sound? --Noleander (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1) The United States ... is a federal constitutional republic of fifty states, a federal district, five organized territories and nine uninhabited possessions.
... add your user name here if you could live with this ...
3) The United States ... is a Federal Republic which governs 50 states, several territories and a Capital district all of which are controlled to one degree or another by the Federal government, a Congress and the U.S. Constitution..[note2]
... This actually the more accurate per sources and is very close to what I think the article originaly stated. I know editors seem to want "Constitutional Republic" but that is not accurate from what I am reading. I'll surely be in the minority here but ...--Amadscientist (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Second choice. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
4) The United States ... is a country governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states, a federal district and several territories. Sometimes the term 'United States' is used to refer only to the 50 states.
... add your user name here if you could live with this ...
5) The United States ... is a country, in possession of 50 states, several territories and a Capital district all of which are governed by a by the Federal government, a Congress and the U.S. Constitution..[note2]
... add your user name here if you could live with this ...
6) The United States of America ... is a country, governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states, a federal district and several territories. (footnote) Depending on context, a reference to "United States" may encompass the fifty states and District of Columbia only, some of the territories and possessions, or all of them.
... add your user name here if you could live with this ...
7) The United States ... is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of its member states and a federal district as well as several territories in various degrees of autonomy.
... add your user name here if you could live with this ...
8) The United States ... consists of its member states and federal district, as well as territories and commonwealths in association with that nation. It is a federal constitutional republic
... add your user name here if you could live with this ...
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC). Tho 5 in "local autonomy" are not "direct federal control" by Interior and NASA.
First choice. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
This one seems ideal, (although I'd leave out the varying punctuation in the parenth). Some of the others to this effect are fine too. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
This seems OK, though I'd prefer that the "commonly called" portion appear earlier so as not to separate the statement about territorial autonomy -- my intent with my original proposal was to emphasize by juxtaposition that their autonomy was from the governing republic. older ≠ wiser 12:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
10) The U.S. "is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district.... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean.... Broadly defined the term "United States" may include these territories as well."
11) Status quo, "The United States ... consist[s] of fifty states and a federal district. ... the country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean."
My first choice. I have been constantly mystified at how much discussion has transpired for what seems essentially a non-issue. older ≠ wiser 11:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Fourth choice. The debate thus far has made it clear that consensus will not be achieved to preserve the status quo. Nevertheless, it's a choice I could live with. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
"Territories” article question
Editors still ask, How could there be discussion over inclusion of territories with citizens in a modern republic? The "Insular Cases" determined temporary governance without the constitution for alien peoples without republican traditions at the Philippine Insurrection. Shouldn't we await overturning its ruling as we awaited its Brown v. Board? No, unlike constitutional rights, territories are a political question for Congress. My conclusions are not my own, but based on mainstream secondary sources, 1) the GAO and the State Department, and 2) the modern U.S. interpretation by scholars published in several law journals and academic publication of constitutional historians and political scientists.
Political question
In the modern era, Congress speaks comprehensively on the extent of U.S. territory in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), Supreme Court holdings cited, quoted and linked by editor Buzity at archived Talk:United States. The Court expands protections beyond congressional organic acts. The constitution follows citizenship in the modern era.
_ _ Territory west of the Mississippi had the "legacy of the Northwest Territory" as Congress enacted it a) possession, b) unincorporated and c) incorporated before statehood. Territories can be a part of a federal republic, today the U.S. included territories in Pacific and Caribbean. (Sparrow in Levinson and Sparrow, 2005) State Department “Foreign Affarirs Manual” (FAM) (online unclassified, 1985) acquisistion of u.s. nationality shows four territories a part of the U.S. "nation". "Outlying possessions of the United States" was restricted to American Samoa p.5. For the modern territories, ’Fundamental’ Constitutional rights apply to all territories’, pp. 23 at GAO’s 1998 “U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution”. Rights and privileges of today’s incorporated territories have consistently expanded since 1952 to a level which is already described as constitutionally "equivalent to [incorporated] states" (Lawson and Sloane).
U.S.G. definition
If there is international recognition of citizenship, the U.S.G. defines itself today as it officially tells immigrants who would become U.S. citizens in Welcome ... a guide p.77, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, the [five organized] territories”. Supreme Court has ruled citizenship “irrevocable” as cited, directly quoted and linked by Buzity.
_ _ The U.S. is not an outlaw state. The Reisman piece referenced, p.120, Most of the world appears “to view [Puerto Rico's] situation as ‘acceptable’, ... essentially benign.” The U.N. -- elites and majority -- see U.S.-PR commonwealth as “adequate under contemporary law". “Only a small minority appears to view the relationship as unlawful per se.” That view would be wp:fringe, scholarly sources do not re-echo 1911, but speak to the contemporary. Wikipedia should not be used to right great wrongs suffered a century ago, though Insular Cases most certainly did harm; I protest the "separate and unequal" past as unjust and advocate statehood. In the meantime, all U.S. citizens are Americans, upfront in the lede sentence, according to secondary sources, my point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting Reisman's article and editors can follow the link to it here. TFD (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Factcheck? you make only ad hominem attack. The article says U.S.-PR relationship is seen by the "contemporary" U.N., elites and a majority, as "adequate" or "benign", and that those asserting it to be "unlawful" are a "small minority" there. Nothing is good enough, not U.S.G., not your own suggested sources. But NO source that says, "modern (1963-2013) U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S.", only wiki-editor synthesis of tertiary sources, original research in digests and unsourced opinion referring to "settled law" and "all sources" -- without sources --- my point in trying to make a sourced contribution to "include territories". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The source says that the relation between the U.S. and Puerto Rico is seen by other countries as adequate, not that Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. If you are looking for a source that Puerto Rico is not part of the U.S., then read the next paragraph in Reisman's article, "First, under international law, the United States views Puerto Rico as "distinct." The accomodation reached in 1953 stressed Puerto Rico's existence as an international entity separate and distinct from the United States." TFD (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
History overview. In U.S. constitutional practice for territories acquired after the Treaty of Paris 1783, the “legacy of the Northwest Territories” applied uniformly, although delayed in the case of Spanish-speaking Arizona and New Mexico. That legacy was NOT extended to the territorial empire acquired in the 1890s from Spain, Germany and Denmark, until a) the onset of the Cold War competition over the 'Third World', and b) the scrutiny of the United Nations advocating for colonial peoples.
Congress of the 1930s began New Deal economic assistance to territories. In the 1950s, after the death of former P.I. colonial governor, president, chief justice Howard Taft, congress extended greater political freedoms and local governance modeled after the “legacy of the Northwest Territories”. Fundamental change in American political outlook requires 30-40 years of persistent majorities; by the 1960s the U.S. territories began to look like the historically incorporated territory preparing for statehood.
”Incorporation” in the U.S. constitutional practice is not merely ‘citizenship’ conferred by governing state fiat as was done at Puerto Rico about WWI. Over the last half-century it has been a mutual interplay between congress and local populations in their legislatures and referendum. The “legacy of the Northwest Territories involves allegiance to constitution, supremacy of congress, republican three-branch government, submitting to Article III federal court, and electing a territorial Member of Congress.
Today the U.S. federal republic includes 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories. Its possessions include an additional nine uninhabited places under direct federal administration. Its jurisdiction extends variably to extra-territorial embassies, military bases, and cemeteries. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Gentlemen, can we not? We're getting into points that have already been made by both sides, perhaps in another form, none of which are particularly relevant to the current tabled proposal. We didn't come here to move on to the next problem, nor to let our discussion spill over onto this page. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying you have read the source and agree with TVH's summary, or are you saying that you disagree with his summary but agree with his overall opinion? Have you read the source? TFD (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm just saying we can discuss this, if need be, at another time. I don't see how any of it is relevant to the pending compromise. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Two US lead options with most endorsements
Here are the two candidates that received the most endorsements above. I suggest that we repeat the endorsement process with these two candidates. Again, the idea is that parties (or any editor) would put their name under multiple candidates that they could live with ... not to pick the one they think is ideal. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Second choice, though I think the phrasing could be improved. older ≠ wiser 19:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
noting this was the clear first choice of a majority of editors above (7 votes), and represented a compromise to gain consensus Collect (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
First and only choice this time; while I endorsed a) in the multi-option straw poll above, it was merely because I felt I could live with it, even though I felt it was not viable. Having considered that position, I don't think I could live with a non-viable option, and therefore I will not be endorsing a). Also, while this is a tiny, tiny point, I would prefer a comma following "nation state". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we've gotten to a good stopping point for this DRN case. My recommendation is to take the proposal with the most endorsements above, and insert it in the article's lead, and then start a discussion on the Talk page about copy-editing it (punctuation, minor wording improvements). I also think that the article could use more material in its body which explains the multiple usages of the term "United States", and how the term sometimes is used to mean only the 50 stages, and sometimes is used to include more than that. If there are additional unresolved issues that cannot be taken care of on the talk page, I'd suggest starting a WP:RFC to address those. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I've set up a discussion at Talk:United States#DRN case wrap-up to see about bringing about these recommendations. Hopefully we can take it from here. Thanks for all your help Noleander and Amadscientist! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
