| Revision as of 15:10, 4 April 2006 editWilliam Allen Simpson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,485 editsm moved Talk:Subdivisions of the United States to Talk:Political divisions of the United States: not called "subdivisions"← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:18, 4 April 2006 edit undoWilliam Allen Simpson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,485 edits →how about "Subdivisons of the United States": sorry, my poor phrasingNext edit → | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| :I had the same problem. I was looking for ], but simply couldnt find it! With no opposition being voiced since March 9 (comment above), I was bold and moved it. | :I had the same problem. I was looking for ], but simply couldnt find it! With no opposition being voiced since March 9 (comment above), I was bold and moved it. | ||
| :Cheers, ]]] ] 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC) | :Cheers, ]]] ] 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::And I moved it back. You didn't even both to fix the double redirects. My goodness, the categories are all wrong! Some German speaker with poor English skills has corrupted the correct "Administrative Divisions" into "Subdivisions" Needless to say, the categories are '''not''' about platting. | |||
| :::--] 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Excuse''' me? German speaker with poor English skills? Would you like to take that back before or after I point you to my user page? | |||
| :::I'd also like to point out that the ] (which, like Germany, I also dont come from) are also not about platting. They are just in sync with the regular naming for such articles, thats all. | |||
| :::And indeed forgot about the redirects, my bad. | |||
| :::]]] ] 15:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, wasn't referring to you, was Tobias Conradi that renamed all the categories (changed context in the previous sentence, probably should have been a new paragraph). At about the same time he lost the straw poll at ]. | |||
| ::The standard terminology is ] and ]. I've only just started looking, and found a pile of articles and categories that used to be correctly named "Administrative divisions of XXX". Can't tell about ], seems to have been originally about "Federal subjects" and split some time ago. | |||
| :::--] 18:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:18, 4 April 2006
Misleading
This is misleading enough to need an extensive rewrite. The first paragraph is just wrong. The Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from altering the boundaries of states without their consent.
Federal Oversight of United States Territory
Congress of the United States
The U.S. Congress is granted the power to set political divisions within the territory of the United States. The power of Congress over such divisions is exclusive and universal, which would not preclude state and local governments from suing the federal government if they disputed an act of Congress.
United States Department of the Interior
On March 3, 1849, on the last day of the 30th Congress, a bill was passed to create the U.S. Department of the Interior to take charge of the internal affairs of United States territory. The Interior Department has a wide range of responsibilities (which include the regulation of territorial governments, the basic responsibilities for public lands, and other various duties).
In contrast to similarly named Departments in other countries, the United States Department of the Interior is not responsible for local government or for civil administration except in the cases of Indian reservations, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and island dependencies, through the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 05:56, April 29, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are objecting to. The paragraphs you excised talk about the Congress' authority over U.S. territory, NOT the States of the Union. There is a difference. older ≠ wiser 11:44, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For reference, from the U.S. Constitution.
- Article IV, Section. 3.
- New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
- 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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
The deleted text may need some minor clarification, but there is no basis for wholesale deletion or overhaul. older ≠ wiser 20:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Palmyra Atoll
Why is Palmyra Atoll '"privately owned," disputed'? Pædia 16:26, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
- Good question. This is the first that I've heard of it being "disputed" (other than between the two of us as to whether is is permanently staffed or not :). older≠wiser 17:04, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
(Laughing out loud!) Thanks. Pædia 19:39, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
Jengod, I think you inserted 'disputed' at 15:08, 2004 Jun 24. Pædia 21:00, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
Palau
Palau was never a US unincorporated territory, and it never appertained to the US. It was part of a League of Nations Mandate, and later a UN Trust Territory under US administation, just like the territory that later became the Federated States of Micronesia
- I'm not sure why the above comment is here, but the appropriate place for this content is Palau, if the existing text there doesn't cover this adequately. -- Beland 03:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
A "Trust Territory" is specifically defined as an international mandate to administer a non-self-governing territory, and to help it build a self-governing infrastructure, with the explicit intention and obligation of preparing that territory to exercize its right of self-determination, be it by independence or by eventual political union with the administrating country.
While the actual governance of a Trust Territory is the responsability of the country holding the trusteeship, said country does not possess sovereignty. Sovereignty lies with the international organization that executes the Mandate or Trust, be it the League of Nations or the United Nations. For this reason, an accurate political map will never label a Trust Territory with the name of the administrating country, or with the phrase "to ," but will instead show the proper formula of "-administered."
- Ditto, for United Nations Trust Territories. -- Beland 03:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Syncing content
Is there a better way to sync content of the Insular areas list with Insular areas? A template, perhaps? -- Beland 02:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Utter Bullsh
I already excised an entire paragraph which completely mischaracterized the government of New York City. I 'm thinking this also needs to go: In essence, the city as municipal corporation is the modern form of the ancient city-state, a sovereign entity that exists today only in the forms of Singapore, San Marino, Monaco, and the Vatican. What do others think? Nelson Ricardo 17:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
how about "Subdivisons of the United States"
like for the others in Category:Subdivisions by country ? Would this be ok? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I had the same problem. I was looking for Subdivisions of the United States, but simply couldnt find it! With no opposition being voiced since March 9 (comment above), I was bold and moved it.
- Cheers, The Minister of War 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- And I moved it back. You didn't even both to fix the double redirects. My goodness, the categories are all wrong! Some German speaker with poor English skills has corrupted the correct "Administrative Divisions" into "Subdivisions" Needless to say, the categories are not about platting.
- Excuse me? German speaker with poor English skills? Would you like to take that back before or after I point you to my user page?
- I'd also like to point out that the Subdivisions of Russia (which, like Germany, I also dont come from) are also not about platting. They are just in sync with the regular naming for such articles, thats all.
- And indeed forgot about the redirects, my bad.
- The Minister of War 15:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't referring to you, was Tobias Conradi that renamed all the categories (changed context in the previous sentence, probably should have been a new paragraph). At about the same time he lost the straw poll at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (subnational entities).
- The standard terminology is Political division and Administrative division. I've only just started looking, and found a pile of articles and categories that used to be correctly named "Administrative divisions of XXX". Can't tell about Subdivisions of Russia, seems to have been originally about "Federal subjects" and split some time ago.