Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::::::Thanks, I see now that attributes the "employer’s share of ... corporate tax liability" to employees, and not even the owners. I'm pretty sure at least ''some'' portion is borne by customers and securities holders. That would make look much more like the CTJ/IETP bar chart above. In any case, thanks again for the discussion and I'll wait to see what you come up with. ] (]) 06:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks, I see now that attributes the "employer’s share of ... corporate tax liability" to employees, and not even the owners. I'm pretty sure at least ''some'' portion is borne by customers and securities holders. That would make look much more like the CTJ/IETP bar chart above. In any case, thanks again for the discussion and I'll wait to see what you come up with. ] (]) 06:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::: '''"TPC assumes that....owners of capital bear the burden of the corporate income tax in proportion to their income from capital (in the form of smaller returns on their investments)..."'''
:::::::::: '''"Corporate income taxes are distributed to households according to their share of capital income."'''
::::::::::I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers and others, but then I think ''other'' taxes are at least partially passed on in various ways too, as I illustrated earlier with my income tax hike on the rich guy comments. That said, if one is going to develop effective tax rate incidence charts, then corporate taxes should be imputed to the owners, since they're the ones most directly paying them. ] (]) 07:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
== Territory issue needs formal Request For Comment (RFC) ==
== Territory issue needs formal Request For Comment (RFC) ==
Revision as of 07:47, 27 March 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page.
Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"?
Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case.
This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States".
If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute.
Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States":
"United States" is in compliance with the Misplaced Pages "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Misplaced Pages naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States.
Exceptions to guidelines are allowed.
If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States".
Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other.
This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country.
The Macropaedia version of Britannica uses "United States of America" for its article title.
With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Misplaced Pages should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world.
Misplaced Pages is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia.
Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America":
It is the country's official name.
The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name.
The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America."
The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America."
The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Misplaced Pages articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Misplaced Pages is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States.
Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world?
1. Isn't San Marino older?
Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution.
Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848.
Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Misplaced Pages articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence.
The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut.
Q4. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President?
The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox.
Q5. What is the motto of the United States?
There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States.
Q6. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy?
The United States was the world's largest national economy from about 1880 and largest by nominal GDP from about 2014, when it surpassed the European Union. China has been larger by Purchasing Power Parity, since about 2016.
Q7. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"?
In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas.
Q8. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight?
The article is written in summary style and the sections "Indigenous peoples" and "European colonization" summarize the situation.
United States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. (2010), Orson Scott Card: United States, author, critic, public speaking, activism, genre, Betascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2009), Biosphere 2: Biosphere 2, closed ecological system, Oracle, Arizona, Arizona, United States, Biome, space colonization, Biosphere, rainforest, Ed Bass, BIOS-3, Eden project, Alphascript{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Military journalism: Combatant commander, psychological warfare, United States, public affairs (military), propaganda, journalist, Civil-military operations, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Spain set up settlements in California, Texas and New Mexico that were eventually merged into the U.S. There were also some French settlements along the Mississippi River.
Sito3 (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"In 1607-9, English at Jamestown and Spanish at Santa Fe established permanent settlements later incorporated into the U.S. Dutch established trading posts at Albany and New York, French at Quebec, Natchez and New Orleans, Spanish at St. Augustine and Pensacola. The European colonial powers ensured the North American continent would be as contested as Africa in a later century."
I squeezed St. Augustine in the second sentence, as a trading post because of sources. I think simple surveys leave out the nasty business, it was Spanish, Brits take it, convert or die, slaughter, Spaniards retake it, convert or die, slaughter. Also, another free black community of the Atlantic world (Ira Berlin), black regulars in battalions as in New Orleans, escaped American slave maroon communities from Georgia and the Carolinas, etc. Too complicated.
Here is another crack at "encyclopedic style". The text can be re-oriented to "influencing U.S. growth". That would give us nice 3-3 east-west, 3-3 north-south parallelism and touch on Dutch, Spanish, French and Russian actors:
"Before the United States grew west, early European non-English settlements and trading posts were established in the 1600s and 1700s that would influence its growth. They left their mark in ethnic settlement and competing commercial interests from New Amsterdam, St. Augustine and Quebec in the east, to New Orleans, Santa Fe and Kodiak in the west."TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I think I get your point -- not history article -- United States article might add,
“Early non-English European settlement of places which later became a part of the U.S. include Duch Albany and New Amsterdam, Spanish St. Augustine and Santa Fe, French Natchez and New Orleans and Russian Kodiak.”
If you go to the history tab to the article page, one can see the changes from the previous version, using the prev link, that will provide a url for the change in content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Federal republic
I wanted to mention that the lede refered to the US as a Constitutional republic and/or a Federal constitutional republic. But it is a Federal republic and is supported by the reference that was in place. I have added additional sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
No. I am not even sure there is such a thing as a constitutional republic. This term seems to have been propagated by partisan politcs to remove the term Federal. The US is verifiably a Federal republic. Ancient Rome was considered a constitutional republic. They didn't have a formal federation of states.....and they never even had a written constitution.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Ancillary comment to Amadscientist. Ancient Roman republic never granted citizenship to those of the empire, citizenship of the soil only to those born on the seven hills tribes which elected Roman senators, in similar manner to Samoan tribe representatives to the territorial legislature in addition to the population-apportioned representatives. Citizens who gave extraordinary service to Rome were granted honorary citizenship, but it did not pass to children as naturalized U.S. citizens in Samoa. Big debate in Articles Congress and Constitutional Convention and first Congresses whether newly admitted states should be provinces or admitted on equal footing with the thirteen original states. Admit as equal citizens in equal states won the votes in convention and in congress. Musings on 'original intent of the founders' notwithstanding, all founders did not have voting majorities to enact.
Aside comment. This article suffers from those who confuse federal polity (government) as in dual national and provincial (state) citizenship, versus 'federal government' as conventionally used in the modern U.S. to mean 'national government'. It is of some tangent interest that Switzerland is a "federal republic" with citizenship of blood, it will not allow citizenship of the soil as in U.S. territories, or even citizenship by one parent of the soil, creating a second-class of residents similar to non-citizen descendants of Koreans in Japan? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
You have managed to pack a lot of misinformation into a brief posting. Romans elected senators? People like Pompey born outside the city were not citzens? The republic "never granted citizenship to those of the empire" shows a confusion between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. If you are ignorant of ancient history, then it is better you not mention it. When I was a pupil, classical civilization was taught in elementary school. Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan?TFD (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Ancillary point, continued. First point, more editors should read into the classics as TFD has done, even if it is in translation, though multiple languages gives insight an nuance impossible in any other way of training. Pompey pardoned a defeated army survivors and set them to farming. Washington oversaw captured Hessians pardoned and given land grants. Even if one does not master the classics, virtually every leader of U.S. politics in the 19th century learned his Latin before college reading Caesar, written of his exploits to be read aloud to the populace on Roman street corners. We should read the things which those we would study have read, to properly interpret their words and actions. I often disagree with TFD, but he is head-and-shoulders above most wikipedia editors in background reading and logic, makes discussion always really interesting and frustrating when I'm not persuasive.
Second, chronological sense is crucial to understanding events; unfortunately it seems the elementary course took in only the last 50 years of the Roman Republic. In the early Republic, the seven tribes elected Senators, usually from families trained to the duty, father then son, although there were occasionally “first timers” whose sons were then elected, as sourced in ancient Roman histories.
Third to review material familiar to TFD, in the last 50 years of the Republic, following battlefield setbacks, Rome rewarded loyal aliens on their side with citizenship among Latins, Etruscans and Umbrians, B.C.E. 90, Lex Julia. After the victories of Strabo and Sulla, Roman citizenship was conceded to all allies south of the Po River in Lex Plautia Papiria, B.C.E. 89. Pompey comes to prominence about B.C.E. 70, married Caesar’s daughter about B.C.E. 60, Caesar ends the Republic about B.C.E. 40, your fifty years survey leading up to the First Roman Empire.
Fourth. Sorry for the initial garbling. "In the Roman Empire, there was no Roman citizenship of the soil in the provinces such as Gaul, Carthage or Palestine. Honorary citizenship did not tranfer to children." Better? Since there is only unsourced wp:personal attack on me, your extrapolation of the Roman Republic's last fifty-years to anachronistically cover the history of a 400-year republic means you agree with me to support – what? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
U.S. Federal Republic. back on topic, I agree with Amadscientiest that "constitutional" is NOT required in the lede. The "charter constitution" versus "common law constitution" might be observed under U.S. "constitution" section. Twelve Tables, Roman Republic 449BCE Nebraska Capitol, w. facade, ctr. panel,
Ancillary comment: a) agree. The Roman Republic was indeed not a federated state of provinces, the uncertain thing, scariest about launching the U.S. experiment, it was never successfully been done before in history, and the founders know the history. b) disagree. Early Roman Republic had a written constitution at Twelve Tables, B.C.E. 449., erected in stone at a public square for all to read. An image widely republished in high school texts, is available online from California schools, The Twelve Tables. Also commemorated at Nebraska state capitol west entrance, center panel, found at Wikicommons. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
In any case, I do not see the term "constitutional republic" used very often. It seems to be particularly popular in John Birch Society writing, which is a good reason not to use it. TFD (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Aaaaaw. I missed a good discussion about ancient Rome. I could kick myself. LOL! OK...let me catch up just a tad. The Twelve Tables were not the Roman Constitution. These documents (which were displayed on the Rostra were a result of certain conflicts between the plebs and the patrician in regards to equal protection and many other legislative appeal situations. It is not the Roman constitution, but is important to it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
But, but, but it was a written thing, and laid out the rules of the game, and elevated the plebs a step during the "struggle of the orders". I get that it was not comprehensive, but can't american teachers tell their kids its okay to have a written constitution because the roman republic had kinda sorta of a one? If not a comprehensive (u.s.) charter constitution, is it a 'partial piece' of constitution, sort of like Magna Carta (poor John!) or English Bill of Rights by William and Mary "in Parliament"?
And, what is the "take away" for a survey of divided government from the ancient romans? surely we can have a federal government and a state government with concurrent sovereignties if the Romans could have -- 200 years after the Twelve Tables -- 1) Comitia Curiata divided by families, to elect a magistrate, 2) Comitia Centuriata divided by wealth to elect local officers and make law, 3) Comitia Tributa divided by residence to elect local officers and make law, declare war and peace, and 4) the senate of former elected magistrates, and their censors too. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The difference is that the constitution was the bases of the Roman Republic government as a whole and the twelve tables were a set of laws. We really don't want to compare the United States to a constitutional government like that of the Ancient Roman Republic. it was so weak it lead to its own downfall. The tables were simply the not comprehensive and pertained to definitions and not what we know of the separation of powers, which is the main issue of ho our constitution and theirs differ. In Rome the Senate and Consuls ruled everything. The only other group was the assembly and their power diminished to such a point that they were no longer even meeting in the Comitium but relegated to the field of mars outside of the city. The Comitia curiata was actually replaced by the Comitia Centuriata which gave more power to the military. This is part of how Rome fell...by removing more and more of the direct democracy enjoyed by the people, falling even further back to a monarchy. Heck...the Roman Monarchy developed Republican government and Kings were actually elected.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, the king-nobles-people-tyrant-king cycle. I think in the 1780s, Poland had a nobles' elective king-for-life. I try to point folks to the Federalist Papers, like a history of republics. It’s the one-stop foundation for understanding government, as Washington suggested, it never caught on in public schooling, but since Washington appointed co-author Jay the first Chief Justice, the lawyers practicing before the Supreme Court have to read it whether they want to or not. Really fascinating stuff, like the long term interest of a democratic republic requires rulers with both public virtue and private virtue. What a concept! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Scientom is right; the USA is a constitutional republic as well as a federal republic. In an Aristotelian sense "constitution" just referred to a society's makeup, so by that understanding every polity has a "constitution", but this isn't the 4th Century BC. In modern usage "constitutional" typically refers either to a nation having a formal, written constitution or to a supreme law that trumps edict and statute and that limits the government's power to act. The USA is clearly constitutional in both of those senses, while the UK, for example, isn't constitutional in the first sense but might be in the second (it's still arguable given Parliament's sweeping powers, though the bar is lower because "constitutional monarchy" seems to refer to any kingdom where the head of state's power is limited). The general argument here appears to be that "constitutional republic" is redundant, but there have certainly been republics that lack a formal constitution over the centuries, and many modern era republics have nominally had written constitutions that were either totally ignored and/or that failed to restrict government power in any meaningful way (i.e. communist states; Baathist Iraq).
US Attorney General Hugh Legare, writing in an official legal opinion in 1841, said, "It is true, any state may, in its discretion, do this, as a matter of international comity towards the foreign state; but all such discretion is of inconvenient exercise in a constitutional republic, organized as is the Federal Union;". Politicians and Supreme Court opinions have also used the term over the years. The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge (2007, second edition), drawing on sources like the CIA World Factbook and State Department, lists "constitutional republic" under the "Government Type" category for several nations, though it describes the United States as a "Constitution-based federal republic". I haven't checked to see if John Gray, the New Times staff, or any of the other cited individuals are the Birchers that TFD warned us about. Of course the term is also already sourced in the article by the collegiate law textbook An Introduction to the American Legal System (2002, page 6): "We are not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
I'm not sure "constitutional republic" necessarily has to be in the lede, but I don't want to see all its appearances throughout the article purged (there are currently two others), because the Constitution's prominent place in the American polity deserves special mention. I also don't want readers of this discussion to get the wrong idea about the term's use or be misled into believing it's baseless. And I'm not sure what "partisan" dispute you're talking about (old Talk Page debate?). As VH hinted at, in this context "federal" refers not to the national government but to a decentralized, multi-layered system of balanced powers, and is almost synonymous with "states rights". The same people who tend to emphasis the Constitution's primacy tend to be most grateful for America's federal arrangement. VictorD7 (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Only one of those is a reliable secondary source. The last one, but it is unclear what is being stated with much of the text missing from the snippet. Clearly there is more being said and I am not at all sure this isn't an opinion being qualified by the author themselves.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I was mostly interested in establishing longtime and widespread usage, I provided links for context, and you failed to explain why any of the sources I cited are unreliable. VictorD7 (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
You actually failed to identify them as being secondary, primary or tertiary. You also failed to explain context and relevance. Just using the word doesn't even make it a primary source. The issue is finding a source that claims the US is a constitutional republic in an unambiguous way. The only one that does that in my opinion was the last one but as I said, it appears to be an opinion the author attempts to qualify.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
So you failed to read my comments or click on the links. I'm not sure why you bothered responding at all if you didn't feel like doing either. I was addressing multiple points by multiple posters, including your firm contention (totally unsourced that I've seen) that the US is not a constitutional republic, your doubt that a "constitutional republic" even exists (though for some reason you then indicated Rome was considered one), your claim about a "partisan" attempt to remove "federal", and TFD's attempt to marginalize those who use the term by associating it with the John Birch Society. I explained how I've seen the word used, asked you what "partisan" attempts you had in mind, and listed a sample of several sources, most of them secondary history/political science books by academics (with at least one widely used tertiary source), from a long historical arc, diverse backgrounds, and multiple nations that use the term in general or specifically to describe the USA. I could have cited many more. In case your mouse is malfunctioning, here are some quotes from the links I provided:
Mallet du Pan (about Fance), "The strength of the government resides exclusively in the part of the nation unconnected with the principle factions, and devoted to tranquility or attached to the constitutional Republic."
Colton, "While, therefore, the strife in Europe is between Despotism and an absolute Monarchy on the one hand, and a constitutional Monarchy on the other; in America, the strife is between a Constitutional republic, as originally set up, and a radical democracy."
Brownson, "The great difference between a Constitutional Republic, in which, as with us, the mass of the people take part in the exercise of power, and a simple, absolute Democracy is in this, that in the Democracy, the people are absolute, subjected to no forms not self-imposed, and in which they are at all times, and on subjects free to make their will prevail-whatever they will in law; but in the Constitutional Republic, the people are free to act only within certain limits, only through prescribed forms, and, however unanimous they may be, only such of their act are laws, as are done through these forms."
Boaz (at least speaking historically), "Both the Bush and Clinton administrations have moved us away from our heritage as a federal constitutional republic with a government of limited powers and toward a centralized, national plebiscitary democracy with an essentially unrestrained national government."
Lane, "The two constitutions that initiate the process of constitutional diffusion are the French 1791 constitution and the American 1787 constitution. One outlines a constitutional monarchy whereas the other comprises a republican constitutional state with democratic elements. Behind the scenes of spectacular constitutional politics there is a third model - the mundane British constitutional model, unwritten and less visible, but more and more influential as it spreads parliamentarianism. Parliamentary institutions may be combined with both a constitutional monarchy and a constitutional republic."
Gray, "No system of government in which property rights and basic liberties are open to revision by temporary political majorities can be regarded as satisfying liberal requirements. For this reason, an authoritarian type of government may sometimes do better than a democratic regime, always provided that the governmental authorities are restricted in their activities by the rule of law. This observation yields the important insight about liberal government - an insight grasped by classical liberals as the French guarantist theorists and the German exponents of the Reichtsstaat - that is constitutional government. A liberal political order may take the form of a constitutional monarchy, as in Britain, or a constitutional republic, as in the United States, but it must contain certain constitutional constraints on the arbitrary exercise of governmental authority. Whether these constraints include bicameralism, the separation of powers between legislature, judiciary and executive, federalism and a written constitution, or some other mixture of devices, is less important than the fact that, in the absence of some such constitutional constraints on government, we cannot speak of the existence of a liberal order."
Frost, Sikkenga, "Cooper's initial distinction between despotisms and republics will be made good only after he has introduced that subspecies in the refinement of republics afforded by the constitutional republic."
CIA World Factbook, "Peru....constitutional republic", "Honduras....democratic constitutional republic", "United States....Constitution-based federal republic", "Iceland....constitutional republic", "Uruguay....constitutional republic", etc..
Of course I've already quoted Legare and the 2002 law textbook, but I'll expand somewhat on the latter. If you want to read more you can click on the box that pops up after you go through the link. "The United States relies on representative democracy, but our system of government is much more complex than that. We are not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law. Moreover, lawmaking power is not only vested in legislators but also in executive officials, regulatory agencies, and courts of law.......As we have suggested, law emanates from several sources. It also takes on different forms. In the American legal system, the major forms of law are as follows: constitution A fundamental law that sets forth the structure and powers of government as well as the rights of citizens vis a vis that government. statute Enacted by a legislature, a law that is generally applicable within the jurisdiction of that legislature....."
Clearly it's not a recently made up or defunct term. I'll try to move the process of you clarifying your position along by asking if you also object to the term "constitutional monarchy". VictorD7 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
From your examples, the term appears to be used by the Right to attack at various points in history, Jacobins, democrats, Jacksonians, radicals and liberals. Two of your recent examples, David Boaz and John Gray are both libertarians. TFD (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree. I have also clarified my position clearly. One sided attempts to redefine the US as anything but a federal republic simply appear to be partisan and has no place on the article or the talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
What? Neither I nor anyone I cited is arguing that the USA isn't a federal republic. In fact, more than one of my sources explicitly use the term "federal" or "federalism" in addition to "constitutional republic". You've made no attempt to clarify anything here, and just tossed out a straw man argument. VictorD7 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
First, so what? The American founders were generally libertarian. Second, most of the quotes don't come close to an "attack". Third, the term "right" doesn't even have a coherent, constant meaning over the long historical period cited. Fourth, my examples included the CIA World Factbook and multiple textbooks with dry explanations; Lagare was a Whig simply commenting on the practical difficulties of extradition; I have no idea what Jan Erik Lane's personal politics are; Gray's position was in flux by the time he released the second edition I linked to, having already written works like "Beyond the New Right" and discussing "post-liberalism". Fifth, neither you nor Amadscientist have provided a single source saying the USA isn't a constitutional republic, or that the term doesn't exist, while I've provided several saying it is and does. VictorD7 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Just because some writers, especially on the right, sometimes call the U.S. a "constitutional republic" is no reason to include it in the lead unless that is a common practice for brief descriptions of the U.S. in neutral sources. The term "right" by the way refers to the most conservative members of particular societies from Mallet du Pan, who supported absolute monarchy, to the Cato Institute that wants to return the U.S. to earlier economic policies. TFD (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I reject your characterization that these sources are all on the "right" ("conservative" doesn't have a constant meaning over that time or those places either), or that it would be a problem if they were. Are only left wing sources allowed? By "absolute monarchy", you mean du Pan opposed a constitutional republic? While other quoted sources seem to approve of one? Where's the alleged one-sidedness there? As you describe them, at least, they sound like opposite views. Of course yet others (especially the textbooks) offered matter of fact descriptions that were neutral in tone. And I said in my first post that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the lede. VictorD7 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Du Pan said that he preferred the constitutional republicans, aka Girondins, to the Jacobins and "anarchists." We should not use either left or right wing terminology, but neutral terminology which is why we do not call the U.S. an "empire" even though that is what the source that supports saying the U.S. includes the territories says. Why anyway are we using writings of a reactionary over 200 years ago as evidence for the political status of the U.S.? TFD (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
So Du Pan supported "absolute monarchy" and a constitutional republic. Not exactly a rabid dogmatist. Disapproving of the French Revolution's extremes shouldn't disqualify someone from being a source, particularly if he's not being quoted for his descriptions of the "anarchists" and "Jacobins", and if he's just one of many scholars cited to establish long time usage. I didn't propose using him as an article source. The modern, neutral-toned textbooks stating that the US is a "constitutional republic" are fine for that. VictorD7 (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, just because one can find a source for something does not mean it belongs in the lead. One needs to show that it is typical in a brief neutral description of the U.S. It is a fact for example that Delaware is a state, but it would be POV to say that the "U.S. consists of Delaware, 49 other states, a federal district...." TFD (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, I'm not talking about the lead. The various claims here prompting my response went further than the lead. "Empire" has negative connotations, is widely opposed regarding the USA, and is often used as an epithet regarding the USA. Not so with constitutional republic. It's not like there's a major faction that objects to the term. Are there any sources who argue against it? I think you two are the only ones I've seen take offense to it, and Amadscientist at least is operating under a misunderstanding (federal or constitutional? - false dichotomy). It's a mundane description of reality. The US does have a Constitution, and it explicitly mandates "republican" government. No rhetorical leap required. I appreciate your new, alternative POV example, but the supreme governing law of the land is hardly analogous to elevating a set member like Delaware over other members of that set. Do you also object to "constitutional monarchy"? VictorD7 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I also note that in you last reply Victor you have begun to make claims assuming bad faith. I read everything but all of your last post which was simply too long to read.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
You mischaracterized my post, failed to address any questions or actual points I made, and just admitted that you didn't read at least parts of my last reply. At this point I'm not sure any such assumption is required. VictorD7 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I was actually stating that very thing about your post. Just tossing it back doesn't improve your standing. You have failed on several levels, but the most important of those is that no one has agreed with you and that shows at least one point. You are not making a convincing argument. Just trying to make this about me is no improvement on that.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No, in your last post you started whining about my earlier post correctly indicating that you weren't addressing any of my points. You still haven't. I've only engaged two people on this topic, and your only real substantive comment was a straw man argument, so any intellectually honest person would have to conclude that you've failed across the board. I'm still waiting for you to post a single source or answer some of my reasonable questions. VictorD7 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If this is your way of attempting to convince anyone of your good faith and engage in a discussion of the content I will simply say you have not convinced me. There is no consensus to include the wording in the lead and I am more convinced then ever to look at the other mentions as well. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me know if you ever find any sources supporting any of your positions that I've challenged here, or develop any cogent replies to my questions and points. I said from the beginning that I wasn't necessarily interested in the lede, but if you don't even try to make a case I'll revert any attempt you make to purge the later, properly sourced mention from the article. Have a nice day. VictorD7 (talk)
Considering that I have met the burden of evidence the ball is in your court Victor. So far, no one is supporting your assertions.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
No, mad, you've provided no evidence, and I'm fine with the current status quo. I don't see anyone but you hinting at action beyond the lede, so if you don't do anything on that front we shouldn't have a problem. VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue is not whether or not we can find a single (or even a few) sources which state something. The issue is whether or not the preponderance or bulk of such sources use such terms. You can probably find a source to say anything you wish, and even make a case that such sources are reliable, but Misplaced Pages articles sometimes need to be selective in their text, and in this case, the issue is not on finding individual reliable sources one way or the other, but looking at what most sources say, especially those that have the broadest usage and recognizability outside of Misplaced Pages. I would suggest that other sources with broad readership (other encyclopedias and almanacs with wide English-language readership) should be given preference over specialized sources like low-readership or obscure journals (reliable though they may be) for what the specific phrasing is at an article like this. I have no idea one way or the other what the specific phrasing here should or should not be, but we should first agree on the principles by which we will decide, and from my point of view that should be based on what most readers would recognize, and that would depend on looking at what other sources intended for broad readership agree on themselves. --Jayron3205:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Those are reasonable points, but keep in mind that, contrary to the op's characterization, this isn't an either/or situation. Most country articles describe the government in multiple ways. It's also important to consider other factors, like placement (different bar for lede versus later in the article), a bias in favor of the status quo, and whether the existing text contributes something useful to the article that would enhance a reader's understanding. The context of the current mention, later in the article, has the term "constitutional republic" preceding and setting the stage for a segment that goes on to describe constitutional supremacy and the basic nature of US law, including in this description a direct quote from the legal textbook used as a source. Replacing that use of "constitutional republic" with "federal republic" would be nonsensical, and I see no good cause to simply remove it. Both terms are accurate, have broad cultural usage, and describe different, vital features of the American system. The op was concerned with the lede and I'm fine with either version of the lede, but I eventually decided to throw my own two cents in because I didn't want the brief discussion that had taken place to be used later as a basis for purging all mentions throughout the article. It seemed like the term was being railroaded without the presentation of a single source or rational argument. VictorD7 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Funny...cause I was thinking that "constitutional republic" was being railroaded into the encyclopedia and...funny thing...others agreed when we deleted the entire article. Now cleanup is required in my opinion to adjust this, but...with consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Since I wasn't privy to that debate, it's a shame that whatever happened there is so secret that you're reluctant to make any kind of rational case disputing anything I've said here. VictorD7 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Side note since you mentioned the old page (which I didn't see) - the unincorporated community of "Valley Spring, Texas" (pop. 50) has its own Misplaced Pages page. It gets 142,000 google hits. "Constitutional Republic" gets 4.85 million. Granted, different category but worth noting. "Representative democracy" only gets 2.4 million hits, and "constitutional monarchy" gets 3.59 million. Both those terms have their own wiki articles. Any distinct concept with enough popular usage that it has several million precise wording search hits is notable and should be allowed to have its own article if people want to make one. You seem to be on some type of misguided larger crusade. VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Your constant need to make this about me as an editor is disturbing and uncivil. That just demonstrates your lack of good faith clearly. But the fact that your don't even know what "burden of evidence" is shows you lack understanding of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. All the google hits in the world can be compared until the cows come home. I have met the burden and you just "don't like it".--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
So you've just got more ad hominem BS and still no evidence? Since I support the status quo, and you're the one who would hypothetically be making changes beyond the lede (or why else are you trying to argue with me?) you're the one who clearly doesn't understand "burden of evidence", among many other things. VictorD7 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Undid revision 543554569 by RightCowLeftCoast (talk) Right Cow, the section is on Protest politics, you removed MLK's protest speech against the Vietnam War. Please leave it.
I will be tagging the section with a POV tag, to only include content about the protest politics gives undue weight to one portion of the content. The other portion of the section is about the U.S. involvement in the Cold War. I thought including the image of Reagan asking for the Berlin Wall to come down is appropriate for the end of that era.
It is my opinion only focusing on MLK Jr. in the external media file and sole image for the section creates an undue weight towards one aspect of that era.
Moreover, a more appropriate image for protest politics would be something like these:
Here is an alternate framing using "triple image", it can also be rendered "double image". Disperate image formats can be made to conform to a single frame by altering the pix specification as coded.
WP:ACCESS would have all images justified right for various browsers, especially for the legally blind, which one of my classroom students was.
Without this convention, a second very much more expensive machine had to be used in conjunction with a laptop to access online articles at Misplaced Pages or elsewhere. On occasion the larger machine had to be wheeled behind the student changing classes after the halls had cleared, then set up after the next class had started.
It seems like sort of a hopeless task to choose the one "right" image to encapsulate the Cold War. I also don't really see the point of a POV tag - it's a matter of editorial judgement. Not everything boils down to POV-pushing, and it's hard to understand exactly what POV is being "pushed" by including an image of Martin Luther King Jr. or by requesting that an editor follow WP:BRD.
Some of the images used in the Cold War article to illustrate key aspects of U.S. involvement in the subject include:
American C-47 aircraft during the Berlin Airlift
American and Soviet tanks facing off at Checkpoint Charlie, Berlin Wall
MacArthur observing the amphibious assault on Inchon during the Korean War
American aircraft shadowing Soviet freighters during the Cuban Missile Crisis
Brezhnev and Nixon meeting in 1973, described as a high point of detente
Reagan pledging U.S. support for Afghan mujaheddin during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Fall of the Berlin Wall
There are plenty of others as well... the choice among them is probably best made through discussion here, with the recognition that there's no one right answer. MastCell17:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I was attempting to find a disputed section header article, which is far more neutral, but the closest I could find is Template:Disputed-inline.
The reason for my WP:UNDUE line of thought is that, although I hold Rev. MLK Jr. in high regard, including both the image, and an external media file of a speech of his gives undue weight to one individual. I can see the understanding of using the MLK Jr. figure as he was a leader of a peaceful protest movement that lead to desegregation, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, but to include an additional media file IMHO is unnecessary.
The reason why I included the "Tear Down That Wall" image is that it symbolizes the beginning of the end of the cold war. The image of MLK Jr. is from 1963, and the image of Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate is from 1987, a twenty four year seperation, given that the section deals with 40 something years of history.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Disagree and Agree
I have reverted the image and link so that it would reflect the title of the section which includes "Protest Politics." MLK's protest speech against the Vietnam War could reflect this title but was REMOVED, (NOT moved or edited) by RightCowLeftCoast. The speech is clearly MLK's stating of his protest against the Vietnam War (please listen to it or read the text if you have not already).
Also I agree that the space is limited so it is difficult to add Regan's "tear down this wall" speech video. The section covers 45 years of American history in four paragraphs. Perhaps a fifth could be added by including something on Nixon's trip to China (a major Cold War event), the economic crisis of the 1970-80s and then return to geo-politics and the video of Reagan.
Still however choosing Reagan is also POV decision as it would be just as fair to include Nixon's trip to China, Senator McCarty's House Un-American Activities Committee, or the Warren Court (which is completely unmentioned) as these were also central turning points in the Cold War, Cold War Era and American's history more broadly. (Pestcamel44 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC))
Civil Rights and Cold War
Here is a proposal to illustrate two elements of the time period we want to cover for the narrative.
Martin Luther King, Jr. is a Nobel Peace prize winner for combating racial inequality through nonviolence. His speech, "I have a dream" is a masterpiece. He and that speech is my proposal to illustrate the protest and civil rights piece of this section.
The mass demonstrations against the Vietnam War (a part of the Cold War) were an example of peaceful protest altering policy in a democracy. As a chapter in U.S. history overall, on the world stage it reflected well on activist citizens, government, the persuadable voting populations and their representatives bringing about a difficult national change peacefully. I propose to illustrate that with the Pentagon March.
The speech tags seem to me to be too much clutter for a summary country-article. U.S. was ten years in Vietnam, now its largest trade partner, U.S. lost the war and won the peace? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
First let me agree with TVH in that the speech tag is unnecessary and does create clutter, and gives to much weight to one aspect of the article. I would much prefer to keep the MLK Jr. image, but replacing it with one of protest images would greater emphasize that part of the section and remove the focus off one single individual. Also the other image IMHO should be as much about the Cold War as possible, possibly something other than the image I prefer, but to something more general about the cold war, such as follows:
If anything the Pentagon Protest picture encompasses the era and covers both subjects that are headlined in the section title, I would aslo be fine with only that image, and no external media file.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
MLK's Speech Against the War Mixes both Cold War and Protest, in short- It's Perfect
RightCowLeftCoast, I hear what you're saying about MLK's "I have a dream" speech and I agree that it is a more famous speech than his anti-war one and since history is often written by the victors and not the victims (MLK being one) I think it's clear why his anti-war remarks have gotten less than their fair share of play by historians. History taught in Public Schools does not frequently focus on the remarks of those who objected to their government's actions but that is fundamentally an American trait and part of the country's character as a democracy (especially during the 1960s). That said MLK's PROTEST speech against the Vietnam War (a central part in the COLD WAR) could not be better suited for inclusion in this section titled "COLD WAR and PROTEST Politics"
TheVirginiaHistorian, I also hear and agree with your points on the format and shape of the exisitng images and audio. I think it should be possible to create a dual image like the one you present that includes links to both of MLK's speeches. You obviously have a talent for creating these types of images and if you would volunteer to create this image then I think we could include another image/images that represent another aspect of the Cold War.
Again- Adding text would allow for including other thumb images on the page. I suggested Nixon's trip to China and the McCarthy era as these were both central moments in the Cold War as well as America's history. I don't see why 3 paragraphs can't be made into 4 to describe U.S. history from 1946 to 1990.
Central to all of this is the fact that Misplaced Pages is about balanced points of view. History by its nature has many different perspectives and we need to make those known. I think the multiple images help to do this but the audio is clearly more descriptive and gives the reader a chance to listen to and experience the ideas of the period in a way that the images simply cannot convey. (Pestcamel44 (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC))
Cold War and Civil Rights era. I reread the text narrative, and retitled the header, "Cold War and Civil Rights era". This is addressing a time period of 1945 end-of-world-war-ii until 1990-ish to the fall-of-the-Berlin-Wall as a convenient ending of the Cold War.
It may be that we will want to divide the section into two. But it does not presently read as a history of protests in American public life, so the focus should not be mass movements, but rather two narratives set in the same time frame: a) one domestically related development, civil rights, and b) one internationally related development, the cold war. I will try to serve up two sets of images that can comprehend both narratives in a compact scale. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I did not provide any caption for these two images, which I am sure that we can neutrally word, with it well linked. The images focus on no single individual, and represent both events in their respective articles/sections.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, the reason for choosing the Checkpoint Charlie image was because it reflected the U.S. role in the Cold War in Europe. Other images of the fall of the cold war does not show its relevence to the subject of this article, the United States. Checkpoint Charlie was symbolic of the U.S. role in Berlin and the NATO/WEST Warsaw Pact/EAST divide of the Cold War.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreeing with VirginianHistorian on the "and" subtitle causing some of the problems. I like the idea of MLK "dream" pic as symbolizing both the Civil Rights movement and mass demonstrations. If we're stuck with the "and" subtitle, also anti-war? Student7 (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I put together both of MLK's speeches which makes room for an additional image of the Cold War:
I agree that the section needs expansion. I don't think any of the images are really better than simply an Atomic bomb blast as that was really the symbol of the 1950s Cold War era and the nuclear threat was clearly the biggest threat throughout the entire period. Perhaps a duel image of a Nuclear blast and R
Keeping with past editorial discretion, that each section have two images, and past editorial discretion of only having two image as "supporting content" in each hisory section, we should attempt to best find the images that best represent the main events in the section. In this case, as indicated in the boldly reworded section title, those are the civil rights movement and the cold war. As I have stated before, I am of the opinion that the images which the events depict should be as separated by time as possible. Additionally, the adding of the image of Reagan speaking at the Berlin Wall was called controversial. Why is the image of Reagan considered controversial, and MLK Jr. not? Is it because he was a Republican? As I said before, although I highly admire MLK Jr. I believe that the images used should not focus on single real individuals. As I have said, the only image which does that in the history section is the drawing of the fictional Columbia. This is why in my proposal I choose the image of the National Mall when MLK Jr. said that "I Have A Dream speech". If individuals want to hear his anti-war speech they can find it through his article page. Giving that one speech additional supporting content gives it undue weight to one individual and one the anti-war movement given the many events that occurred between 1946 to 1989.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I will wait until 23March2013 to see if there are any additional objects; if not I will seek to insert the following double image:
I like these two. the captions need blue-pencil, which I hope to get to shortly, I think individual names might be captured in a link to the actual demonstration, the choice sidesteps any potential personality objection, but readers going to the march article will have links to prominent individuals.
I think they bracket the two major themes of the section narrative. Cold War end is clear without being triumphant, demonstrates the international context with flags represented...no bad guy characterization which some might find offensive, but restoration of free travel, the first sign of practical, sustainable peace. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
As Noleander recommended at DRN, we may proceed by rephrasing our lede to reflect the !vote taken in the straw polls conducted there. This phrasing was:
This construction received the endorsement of 6 of 9 participants (and had been endorsed by 7 of 9 participants in an earlier straw poll); the next closest option was endorsed by 4 of 9 participants. While I'm not saying that polling created a consensus (it doesn't), I think we've discussed things at substantial length over the past few weeks (months for some of us), and upon the evaluation of the DRN volunteers we may conclude that a consensus exists for some kind of change.
What I'd like to know at this point is whether we can bring the other participants on board with respect to this proposed change, either through compromise or further discussion limited in scope to the lede. I would ask that we all refrain from digging into the deeper include-vs-exclude territories argument as it is frankly not relevant to this proposed wording, and would only serve to massively derail the conversation and bring us back to where we were last month. Thoughts? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the first order is to add a comma after "nation state" as being reasonable (though I do not like too many commas, myself). We could use the current link for "constitutional republic" and use a "|" to make only "repbulic" appear in blue - but would there be any substantive change in meaning to readers? Collect (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with dropping "Federal". As to the comma, I support it because it makes it clearer that it's the nation state "consisting of" things, rather than the republic, which was a point of contention brought up by TFD. Without expressing an opinion on the merits of TFD's arguments in that vein, I think it's an appropriate spot to compromise in the name of achieving consensus. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I think in the context of the lead, "federal" is a far more important term than "constitutional". I may be misreading Collect's comment, but I think the suggestion was to use this form: The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federalrepublic, consisting of ...older ≠ wiser
Whoops, I got it backwards; yes we should drop the "constitutional" in favor of "federal". But I do prefer the comma after nation state per my above comments. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Right, I meant to add the comma there. The only other suggestion (which I also made at DNR) is to avoid separating the "degrees of autonomy" statement from the several territories. Here's updated suggestion: The United States of America is a nation state, governed by a federalrepublic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district, as well as several territories with differing degrees of autonomy. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA, U.S. or U.S.A.) and colloquially as America.
It doesn't seem correct to say the US is governed by a federal (constitutional) republic. The federal republic is a system, not a governing body. How is this an improvement on the current "The United States...blablabla...is a federal republic consisting of..."? CMD (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It could make sense if the nation is defined as including the territories while the republic is not. Hence we could say "the British Empire was a nation state governed by the United Kingdom." TFD (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but we'd be taking different words/phrases with very flexible meanings, and contrasting them. This isn't going to be at all clear for anyone, or useful. CMD (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to take this moment to register my intense displeasure at the DRN morphing from being about whether or not the territories are included, to this strange version of "governed by a federal republic". Please show me one other, any, country article that has such awkward wording. I don't even know where this hulking frankenstein of a sentence came from; how did we get from "are the territories part of the country" to "the u.s. is a country governed by a republic"? Whose idea was this, and whose idea was it to vote for it? I feel like the one sane person in an asylum. --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:DRN produced a WP:CONSENSUS. I suggest that fighting over that now-established consensus is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy at this point. Or WP:POINT as may be applicable.
I said I would guard the article harshly against poor sourcing and inconsistency; so far as I know that is not disruptive, that is what should be happening, with or without me doing it. As long as your consensus is well sourced and consistent, by all means, keep it. I haven't proposed a change, for one thing at this moment that would be futile, but also because y'all should lie in the "the country is governed by a republic" bed you made. I can speak out of how bad it is. That is not disruptive. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Responding to the DRN decision
I will not fight this; it won fair and square. I will, however, fiercely guard it against poor sourcing, and this requires at least an edit of the area lower in the article where we discuss territories. I will not making this edit; those who want the above edit are required to follow through on it. And, if we even whiff that a particular territory is part of the nation, I will revert that unless that territory's article is edited to reflect the same. We will not become internally consistent on this matter, not on my watch. Maybe that will encourage someone, anyone, to ask the talk pages of those articles how they feel about being annexed. I find it very sad that not one single person who wanted this change went to any of the other talk pages to gather input. Not one. For people who claim to care about the underrepresented peoples, it's mindboggling that you didn't elicit their opinion.
This phrasing does not necessarily require a rewrite of the article as it is sufficiently wishy-washy on the subject, which of course we should have been trying to avoid. Sadly, too many people thought this was a game of sourcing, and could not see the forest for the trees. Fair enough. --Golbez (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
After reading his request, it has no bearing on what I said, because I'm not getting into the "which territories do we include/exclude argument". Y'all can have that one. All I care is, when you make that decision, you make it everywhere. I will be watching. --Golbez (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It's great that a consensus was finally achieved, as with many consensuses this one is a compromise, and as with any compromise not everyone will be happy. That being said let us not become entrenched in a battlefield mindset and let us implement what consensus has developed as the lead sentence. After this we can go ahead and add reliable source(s) so the lead meets with the pilar WP:VER. After this is done, we can discuss what modifications have the consensus of active editors to be enacted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't propose that consensus was achieved. One side got marginally more votes than the other; that is not consensus. At this point consensus comes from the losing side not throwing a fit when the winning side implements their bad idea. I'm willing to work towards that, but at this point consensus is a thing to be gained from a vote, rather than a thing codified from that vote. My compromise is not in the interest of consensus, it's to follow the letter of the law. I'm not in a battlefield mindset (and also, jesus christ, can we go one posting here without resorting to full-caps poilcy acronyms? We're not children, we know what is being talked about), I'm of a don't-fuck-up-the-article mindset. I am not going to revert your change - unless it is poorly sourced or creates an inconsistency. Which really, we should all be caring about, right? That doesn't mean I can't point out how horrid it is, or how terrible the DR process was that we somehow got to "the country is governed by a republic" from the question of "are the territories part of the country". I'm shocked I'm the only one that apparently sees this. --Golbez (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The "compromise" was that the phrasing was changed because of objection to saying the territories were part of the republic. I do not see that calling them part of the "country" or the "nation state" is much of an improvement. I suppose that they are vague enough terms that they could refer to the republic and its possessions. I would however like to see a secondary sources that supports any statements we add to the article. Also, we need to go through and correct the article. For example, the language field in the infobox should include Spanish, Chamorro, Samoan and Carolinian. TFD (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Not it shouldn't. That was established a long time ago; this isn't to list every language that has official status in some small part of the country, it's to list the languages declared official at the federal level. And anyway, this doesn't change anything, as Hawaii was already officially bilingual and we didn't list Hawaiian then (and there's questions as to whether or not New Mexico and Louisiana are also officially bilingual), there's no reason to include the others. --Golbez (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The difference is that federal legislation recognizes official languages for the territories, while it does not for the states. TFD (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
No. Also, we haven't determined which territories are considered part of the country, since apparently the consensus process hasn't touched on that yet. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Um -- French is a "legal" language for many purposes in Louisiana, for one example. While English is the sole language for the laws of the US, that does not mean no other languages are recognized in the various states - and federal ballots are provided in languages other than English as well. In short, the "difference" - ain't. I think you ought to read the encyclopedia articles on "languages of the United States". I would also note that native (Sioux etc.) languages are "legal" in Indian tribal areas - again, contrary to any thought that this is a distinction only held by some "territories." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I have not the foggiest idea what you mean by your cryptic and useless posts on this, and furthermore I suspect no one else understands your goals in posting them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
We are discussing the official languages of the United States, i.e., languages mandated by the laws of the United States, not languages mandated by individual states or territories. Your examples are therefore irrelevant. TFD (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
DR/N is a non binding process. No one is obligated to agree with, follow through with, or be required to adhere to a consensus that does not take into account reliable sources and stitches together a wording or phrase that is not reliable. The very link to Constitutional republic is so week I wouldn't bother linking it. If you use such a link by describing the US as a constitutional republic you give Misplaced Pages the voice of authority over sourcing. Consensus at a dispute discussion cannot override the larger consensus of the general community to only make claims that can be reliably sourced. I, myself, have no objection to other wording determined by a large consensus but only within the guidelines the Encyclopedia has established. It is not appropriate to redefine what the US is, as established by sources and is indeed verifiable.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree the final draft should read, U.S. is a federal republic, drop 'constitutional', to be treated as "charter constitution" versus "common law" in appropriate subsection as editors elect. Just not 'constitution' in lead sentence of introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
We could add languages besides English by the WP:IMPORTANCE criteria. What are the top three? A quick check of the census might determine which languages are spoken in the U.S. among over 20% of the population -- limit it to five for space considerations? At one time in early 20th C. it was English, German, Spanish, French, it changes. There were over thirty languages at home in a DC metro school system last year, with over ten "officially recognized" at the level of preprinted translated forms for school and federal use. I don't think comprehensive languages listing at the infobox makes much sense in a nation of immigrants. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Reliable SOURCES answer each objection raised against the introduction proposal. Objections are variously, I ) there is no source to include territories, II ) U.S.G. is not legitimate/competent, III ) U.S. territorial history stopped in 1910, IV ) territories are second-class citizens, THEREFORE territories cannot be "a part of the United States" for a country-article. To answer in summary,
ET I: There is no source to include territories as a part of the U.S. Editors see U.S. Dept. of State, U.S. citizenship and nationality. 7 FAM 1112, a. and b. p.3-4, “the term ‘United States’, when used in a geographical sense, means (a) the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” and (b) since 1986, “Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America”.
ET II: U.S.G. is not legitimate/competent to define itself, unsourced “international opinion” is to be consulted where local populations have accepted U.S. sovereignty by 96% , constitution, congress and federal courts, citizenship, self-government by elected governors, legislatures, territorial Member of Congress. These privileges exceeding ‘incorporated’ U.S. territories later admitted states, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii. Editors see various proposals December, February and March: - Three U.S. territories are monitored on the United Nations list of “Non-self governing territories” in 2012, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.
ET III: The U.S. has no territorial history since “Insular Cases”, no source since 1962 can be admitted. Tertiary sources must reference Insular Cases. No direct quotes need be found, not in the AFFIRMATIVE, “The only official U.S. is ‘incorporated’ 50 states, federal district and Palmyra Atoll.”, nor in the NEGATIVE, “U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S.” Editors see, secondary government source, Welcome, A guide p.7, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.”
ET IV: Territories are second-class populations without U.N. requirements of self-determination: basic human rights, autonomous self-government and included in national councils. Editors see in Lawson and Sloane, Juan R. Torruella, Levinson and Sparrow, in scholarly law and academic publication by constitutional historians and political scientists that the five organized U.S. territories of today have a constitutional status “equivalent” to incorporated states. They have fundamental constitutional protections, self-governing republican government, and a territorial Member of Congress -- as a part of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I have no clue what you're doing, it's as if you are resuming the argument that led to the DRN. Why are you doing this. Do you not want to move on to the next challenge, which is implementing your bad ideas and me making sure they don't break the encyclopedia? That's the next step. Move on to the next step. Stop wallowing in the past. Please. --Golbez (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I just started paying attention to this debate, but I have to agree with Golbez on the awful wording of that sentence. Surely "consisting of" states, territories, etc. is better than "governed by a federal republic". It's apparently designed to attract a couple of votes to the "include" camp, but I don't get the argument from the two or three editors who accept the premises that the territories are part of the United States, and that the United States is a republic, but that somehow the territories aren't part of the republic. All the inhabited territories have elected governments, established through locally drafted constitutions or US Congressional acts, and their people are US citizens except in one case where they're US nationals with privileges. They participate in the national government through representatives with Congressional committee votes, and share power by having a degree of local control. Even if none of that was true they would still be part of the republic simply because the US is a republic. There's room within a republic for nuance regarding territorial status. After all, they aren't independent, and it's not like they're part of a monarchy. I'd like to think that even some in the "exclude" camp, given that the "include" side will get its way one way or another in that debate, would prefer the cleaner "consisting of" version over the threatened alternative. VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Sparrow says the U.S. is an "empire" consisting of a "federal republic" and dependant territories. In order to remove POV, we change empire to "country" or "nation state." TFD (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. You have no source for your misrepresentation. Sparrow says territories are incorporated before statehood. The federal republic began with territory to the Mississippi River by the 1783 Treaty of Paris. “Territory outside the republic” was incorporated by “democratic empire” in three stages: 1. possession, 2. appointed governor,
3. Territories are incorporated into the republic in preparation for statehood, the “legacy of the Northwest Territory”: on popular referendum accepting constitution, congress and federal courts, then republican self-government, path to citizenship, territorial Member of Congress. The modern territories are a part of the federal republic as cited, directly quoted, and linked to Sparrow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The source is Sparrow's article, "Empires External and Internal: Territories, Government Lands, and Federalism in the United States." Also, while some territories were "incorporated into the republic in preparation for statehood", other territories were not incorporated, including the Philippines and Cuba. TFD (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
DRN case ii
From older≠wiser,
"The United States of America is a nation state, governed by a federal republic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district, as well as several territories with differing degrees of autonomy. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA, U.S. or U.S.A.) and colloquially as America."
additional proposal. , .
U.S. Dept. of State, U.S. citizenship and nationality. 7 FAM 1112, a. and b. p.3-4, “the term ‘United States’, when used in a geographical sense, means (a) the continental , Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.” and (b) since 1986, “Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America”. Secondary government source, Welcome, A guide for immigrants p.7, “The now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.”
The arrived at above lede statement and the notes of clarification here looks as well as they will ever be as concerns the opinions of all involved in 'the great debate'. Let's get this into the lede and, if need be, we can fine tune the notes in due order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
wait are you saying note 1 should contain contradictory sources? Or is this just you brainstorming on which of several sources to use --Golbez (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
We should be using secondary sources rather than tertiary sources because there is no way of resolving conflicting information in tertiary sources. Unlike secondary sources, they do not have footnotes explaining where they obtained their information and errors are not identified in subsequent sources. Notice that Encyclopedia Britannica Online says the U.S. "a federal republic of 50 states." Also it is unclear what relevance note 2 has. And what about the other territories? Their status should be mentioned as well. TFD (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
We reached a WP:CONSENSUS after a great deal of discussion and compromise.. Trying to reverse that is fatuous and tendentious. Sorry TFD - you can not stand athwart the consensus shouting "No way!". Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
There was no consensus achieved, unless you're claiming that, for example, the re-election of Barack Obama represents a consensus decision by the people of the U.S. There was no compromise made, on either side. --Golbez (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
There was a proposed compromise that had a bare majority of support. It is only consensus in an Orwellian sense. older ≠ wiser22:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that consensus is nonbinding as it is a local discussion on the DR/N noticeboard. It cannot override a wider general consensus on the articles talk page. If editors here still don't support that consensus for whatever reason you need to continue the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
We all agreed to let the notice board volunteers handle matters, we answered questions, voted on proposals several times and then we boiled things down and voted on two final options. Was this all for nothing? Is the plan now to let the minority, however marginal, have their way, and to hell with the agreements and procedures we ALL followed? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
@ Golbez asks, can WP allow two secondary sources that are not perfectly aligned? yes, since it aspires to be more than be list articles mirroring dictionaries and digests. The ambiguity in territorial treatment allows for both sourced "political union" of N. Marianas territory, and the locally autonomous self-governance of U.S. citizens and nationals in Samoa, constitutionally "equivalent" to incorporated states, as sourced. Some writer-editors would additionally like to incorporate a broad analytical framework which spans both federated territories of republics and outer territories of unitary monarchies.
Careful language is chosen to be consistent with and admit nuances from all reliable sources, it is not to be "sufficiently wishy-washy". The reader is invited to pursue reading the sourced notes. I recommended Misplaced Pages to my students for overview and to lead them to further reading, especially the links to secondary sources available online. That power of enabling a "one-world classroom" is one of the exciting things about being a writer-editor at wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
@ TFD wonders about the relevance of note 2. The first note provides sources for the U.S.G. - view. The second note provides a source for counter - U.S.G. The purpose is to provide sourced information in both notes of interest to a general international readership. I have invited additional sources in Dec, Feb and Mar to no response. Counter - U.S.G. sources may relate to a) benign bi-lateral negotiations over possessions, b) disinterested investigations to determine how U.S.G. meets its obligations to peoples of Guam, Am. Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands, and c) challenges by nation-states in international tribunals over the legitimacy of U.S. occupation.
But I have only found b) on investigations with assistance here, and a) for negotiations, only a non-specific online State-Dept reference, but I know there to be other territorial disputes. I'm only looking for nation-states in international forums, because history of indigenous tribal claims and ancient hegemony is too complicated for a modern country-article. By Chinese lights, see scholar-geopoltician Robert D. Kaplan in his Revenge of Geography, the modern occupants voting for U.S. territorial Members of Congress in N. Marianas, Guam and Am. Samoa, are merely temporary squatters on the "Second Island Chain" of Chinese Pacific defense; time will tell. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Please show me any circumstance, either on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, where a country is described as "a country governed by a republic". . Y'all might have debated that while I wasn't looking, as I was only concerned with the actual argument that led us to DRN. --Golbez (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
"The US is a federal republic" is an entirely different sentence from "The US is a country governed by a federal republic." For starters, the first one is logical, makes sense, and has existed before in all of human scholarship. --Golbez (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hence the comma -- the "republic" is the "form of government" and is not the definition of the nation -- If we had "The UK is a monarchy, governed by a constitutional Parliament", that would not assign a identity between the constitutional Parliament and the nation. The goal here is to furnish a readable precis for users of the encyclopedia, and, as a general rule, if a statement in the lede is rationally a summary of the body of the article, it does not require extra notes or cites. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
"The goal here is to furnish a readable precis" You're failing. The comma isn't really changing anything. --Golbez (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
"France, officially the French Republic, is a unitary semi-presidential republic located mostly in Western Europe, with several overseas regions and territories.""French Guiana is located in South America; Guadeloupe and Martinique are in the Caribbean; and Réunion and Mayotte are in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Africa. All five are considered integral parts of the republic." --
My previous readable "United States, officially the United States of America, consists of a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories.", was tabled for participation in a wider community in arriving at a wiki-consensus < 100%, rather than abruptly asserting the primacy of secondary government and scholarly sources over tertiary editor synthesis, which five months ago might have resulted in article-disruption.
At that time, the "count" was 1-4, with the 80% majority of the opinion expressed here holding that sourced scholarly co-editors of constitutional history and political science were, "the opinion of an expert arguing against consensus and therefore cannot be presented as a fact." --- At this time, did Golbez wish to suggest alternative language or additional sources for the lede sentence in 'United States' as writer-editor? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
"The French republic ... is a republic." This is fine. It does not say "France is a country governed by the French Republic." That would be nonsensical. And yes, I did suggest alternative language - the status quo. Since I was still debating the territory question, while y'all had apparently moved on to the question of how best to insult the English language. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I support the wording, do not support the notes. TVH, that 7 FAM source is a mere reference to 8 U.S.C.§ 1101, which itself is specifically limited to the context of 8 U.S.C.ch. 12, on immigration and nationality. It is at least unpublished synthesis if not outright original research to make the leap from a limited definition like that to the general contention that United States includes territories. Even if we want to say "in some contexts", I think these sorts of sources are undesirable because in using them we presume without justification that Misplaced Pages should bind itself by federal publications and laws. We want scholarly sources... ideally things written by scholars. We have Sparrow, and we have the legal encyclopedias. If we have to source the lede, I think we should go with those sources.
As to the wording itself, yes it may be a bit contrived, but it helps nobody to go and unravel the extensive discussion we had at DRN. I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying "a nation state governed by a republic", especially if such wording can end this dispute until someone comes up with a better wording... and that's just it: nobody has anything better. The status quo is inadequate: the extensive discussion at DRN demonstrated this. Even those who could support the status quo, when their actual opinions are gleaned from the discussion, it becomes clear that they would prefer some other wording as well. So maybe we don't have a consensus for the direction we want to take, but I say there is a clear consensus that the status quo is inadequate. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Except, in all modern circumstances except those in an ongoing civil war, the country and its government are synonymous. "X" is a country and that country is a Y. Example of the long form: Italy is a country and that country is a republic. Removing the redundancies: Spain is a monarchy. France is a republic. The United States is a republic. It is not governed by a republic, it IS the republic. --Golbez (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
See British Empire. It "comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom." We merely substitute the POV term in Sparrow with "country". TFD (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree. We've had months to hash out every iteration of this argument, and we spent nearly three weeks at DRN trying to hash this out. Nobody's really bringing anything new to the table... except perhaps some new sources which, respectfully, do not contribute any new clarity to the overall picture. Do we have a consensus? Maybe not. If not, let's get one. Golbez, TFD, et al., you know you aren't going to drive away the includers nor change their minds; TVH, you know the same about the excluders; and to myself, I should know that I'm not changing anybody's mind either. Let's all take a moment to reflect on this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
We argued for months over whether or not the territories were part of the country. Then in a couple of weeks (the whole time wasn't spent on it, it was a latecomer) somehow DRN comes up with this wording that the U.S. is a country governed by a republic. You say citation needed? OK: The entirety of everything written ever. Google "United States is governed by a republic", with the quotes since you say my version needs a citation and yours doesn't, and let me know how many results you get. Let me know what variations you try to get the number of hits over one, I'm curious if anyone has ever thought to describe a country in such a linguistically dysfunctional fashion. I'm confused why you think this is still about the "includer/excluder" argument, as that is irrelevant to this second task that the DRN seems to have taken up of finding the most obtuse and obfuscated way of describing a country. --Golbez (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I would point you to the phrasing "federal government of the United States" as a fairly good indicator that the government and the nation are not the same in all contexts, just as the phrase "United States and Puerto Rico" indicates that the phrase does not include Puerto Rico in all contexts. At any rate, I'm honestly not sure what "linguistically dysfunctional" means in this context, nor how the phrasing is obtuse. It's concise; necessarily so because we're dealing with a lede. It is something that must therefore be expanded upon in a subsequent section, and which can be easily achieved. Perhaps it glosses over some fine distinctions, but frankly, that's the nature of a lede. At the very least, I haven't seen anybody argue that this phrasing makes a statement that is untrue or unsupported by sources; the same cannot be said of the current lede. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, I spoke in too concise terms. The *form* of government is synonymous with the country, not the actual government itself. France is not its current federal government, but it is a republic. It is governed by its present government, yes, but no one would ever say that "France is a country governed by a republic." They would say "France is a republic." If you're not seeing the difference here then I suppose I'll move on to more fruitful pastures. --Golbez (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "federal government of the United States" distinguishes that government from the federal governments of other states, the US not being the only federal state. As for conciseness, "The United States is a federal republic" is far more concise (and less obtuse) than "The United States is a nation-state governed by a federal republic." CMD (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The problem is...the "consensus" to include items NOT in the original dispute is not appropriate. The issue of "Federal republic" was not a part of the original dispute. Here is the original dispute overview:
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 Misplaced Pages 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.
Clearly in this case the DR/N has exceeded the dispute in an inappropriate manner and thus the entire consensus is in question. How we went from this to including other disputes outside the original filing is a mystery, but is simply not accepted by a number of editors for whatever reason. As was stated, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is a non-binding process and volunteers have no special powers and any implementation of a smaller consensus still requires the agreement of all editors on the main article page. Simply put, it isn't something everyone can live with.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. I can live with the broad strokes of what DRN came up with wrt the territories argument, despite their obsession with playing a sourcing numbers game, but I can't live with this horrendous wording they came up with and that they irrationally defend by claiming it has a "consensus." --Golbez (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Excuse us, but you were all for getting consensus and participated in the votes like everyone else, so we really don't need to hear any more of your opinionated objections, endless whining and hypocritical bullshit nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was for getting consensus. I still am. A 6-4 vote, or whatever it was, is only consensus in your mind. I have said, repeatedly, that I would abide by the decision, and would only defend it against poor sourcing and inconsistency, which I point out is far more than you have promised to do, sirrah, but that in no way means it has gained a consensus. As I said above, consensus was not gained from discussion, so now consensus must be gained through acceptance and time.
I participated in the votes which included the bad options created by people who thought this was about who could get the most sources and ignored logic and reason, that's fine, but my participation in the process does not mean I cannot criticize the process or the horrible solution you came up with. I am abiding by the original letter of the DRN: That this is about the territories. The DRN has apparently decided the territories are neither part nor not-part of the country, but rather have "differing levels of autonomy". Fine, weasel your way out of making an actual decision, that's fine, I don't mind, put that in there as long as you can source the ever living hell out of it and don't create an inconsistency with the rest of the article or the pedia. But I did not participate in a DRN that came up with phrasing, except to criticize it. --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Insert : Yes, you didn't participate, all you did was criticize, everything, even the process of consensus we all voted in, several times, and you're still at it. No one is 100% delighted with the lede and notes, and we all have our points of criticism -- not just you, sir. I have striken my less than civil 'term' and for whatever it's worth, your user page doesn't exactly inspire good faith. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that arguing the merits of a proposal, and voting in every vote, didn't count as participation. Please tell me more. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it might be time for a RSN discussion? Because I am pretty sure the differing levels of autonomy is supported by the legal encyclopedias I've been kicking around for awhile now. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the way I see it, their "level of autonomy" is a separate question from "are they part of the country," which is also why it annoyed me. I don't know if it's RSN-time yet, if only because no final proposal has really been made for the notes and sourcing. And really, I must give credit to those who ran the DRN: They did their best, but they fell into the trap of trying to determine a specific wording rather than finding the specific spirit. It doesn't matter as much how it's worded, as long as we agree on what it's trying to say. But, by design or by accident, we appear to have fallen into that trap. I'm now trying to pull people back from that. They've apparently found the spirit, but the wording needs work. --Golbez (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah. That makes sense. I can sign on to that concern, though as I've contended I disagree that the wording is so bad as to necessitate substantial further revision. Nevertheless, I feel like DRN was making the best of what they could; we each have our own opinions and arguments on the merits, and are not making headway towards persuading each other no matter how long the debate goes on. Truth be told, we all have valid arguments. There is no binding mediation on WP for content issues, thus I believe DRN was doing the next best thing; pushing us to the next step. While we can reject the specific implementation, I suggest that the strategy of focusing on the implementation rather than the merits would be more productive for us at this juncture? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
edit break 2
I saw another reductio ad absurdum above, signaling a retreat from previous PROGRESS ( * ) in consensus building here by the end of January. Supreme Court says extent of the U.S. is a political question decided by Congress, and Congress extends republican self-government, and citizenship in organic acts as it has incorporated territories over the last 200 years, as sourced, quoted and linked above. In the modern era since 1962, Congress summarily makes a formal definition of the extent in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) as amended, as cited, directly quoted and linked by Buzity in January? discussion. We had the following summary of movement to "include territories" among participants. We do now ALL agree, as of 7 February,
* “Exlude territories” (ET) side allows primary and secondary source discussion beyond unnamed "all the sources" of unnamed editor consensus. * Congressional statute is the law of states and territories, territorial referendum accepting U.S. citizenship and congressional supremacy does not "exclude" them from the U.S. federal republic. * Congress is bound by the Constitution and cannot suspend territorial legislatures or U.S. citizenship anywhere. * British territory without Member of Parliament is not equivalent to U.S. territory with Member of Congress. * Territorial Members of Congress do exist at .gov websites. * No objection to the official “include territories” found in U.S. Code applicable wherever the word "state" apprears for all federal courts. * U.S.G. in the modern era routinely includes territories "as a part of the U.S." in Census of population, economy and agriculture, Post Office, Immigration and Naturalization Acts and State Department Manual. * "including" need not await ocean treaty surveys resolution to compute square areas of territory. * Data reported in France (98% by OECD), and U.S. (98% by Census), does not change international rankings. * The "Insular Case extent" of the official U.S. as “incorporated” 50 states, DC, and Palmyra Atoll is inappropriate for article. **- ET's court cases are mostly prior to 1935, as referenced in tertiary sources. * Productive economies of self-governing U.S. citizens on islands are not equivalent to uninhabited islands of palms, guano pits and seagulls.
Still no secondary sources from a reliable academic source since 1962 to say either (a)in the Negative, "U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S. federal republic." or (b)in the Affirmative, "The official United States of America is fifty states, the federal district and Palmyra Atoll.", the court-made 1901-1904 “incorporation” of territories without Congress. --- Golbez a month and a half ago, "And by "exclude territories" side, you mean the three or four people arguing for it, and by "include territories" side, you mean and Buzity? Because the problem is that you can't say you won unless you gain consensus from others that you won. And it still looks like the numbers aren't in your favor." --Golbez (talk) 10:03 am, 6 February 2013. With only tertiary sources on one side, the secondary sources for the other are to determine the course of the narrative at WP. Still no secondary sources to say, "exclude territories" in the modern era, October 2012-March 2013. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Well that was three paragraphs of ... something. I have no clue what you are trying to say here. It's as if you're trying to fight the DRN again, that fight's over, move on to implementation. --Golbez (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Golbez on this point. I'm trying to understand what's written above as anything other than a rehashing of prior arguments... but I cannot. Let's move on, folks. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I would love to move on, but there always seems to be someone introducing new objections, and after many weeks of debate -- and then when a complete lack of respect for the process we all participated in hits the fan one can only wonder if this debate will ever end. We voted on a lede. I am not 100% happy with the lede, and I believe no one else is -- this is why we answered questions and voted several times to come up with a lede that acknowledges territories, yet doesn't say outright that they are part of the United States. But no, this is still not good enough -- and the fuzzy objections continue. Not my idea of "perfection". Are we going to implement it or not? If there are issues about 'being a republic' and 'governed by a federal republic' , then why don't we simply say this?:
The United States of America is a federal republic, governed by a federal government, consisting of fifty states and a federal district, as well as several territories with differing degrees of autonomy. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA) and colloquially as America.
We can mention that the states govern themselves to a certain extent and also note how the territories are treated with notes and/or in the body of the text -- but we need to take the first step and get the lede into place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Because that's horrible. The article currently begins, "The United States ... is a federal republic". What is wrong with that? Why this obsession over saying what it's governed by? Seriously, you just wrote "is a federal republic governed by a federal government". This isn't the Simple English Misplaced Pages, we don't need to repeat words. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
How does that not say outright they are part of the United States? It's very explicit in its inclusion of them as part of the United States. CMD (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
the phrase differing degrees of autonomy. addresses that. You need to review the weeks of discussions. This point has been addressed. No one is 100% satisfied. The idea is to not to say the territories are completely independent and have nothing to do with the federal government. We are trying to move on, not start at square one all over again. Thanks for your interest of late. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"Differing degrees of autonomy" does not answer the question of if they are part of the nation. You can have differing degrees of autonomy within a nation (see Hong Kong and China) and differing degrees of autonomy without a nation (compare Bermuda and Pitcairn Island)). --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I have read over the discussions, since they were linked on my talkpage. The phrase "differing degrees of autonomy" addresses nothing. Even if we accept that autonomy is something that determines whether an area is part of a country or not, which it isn't, are we now trying to say the territories are parts of the countries to differing degrees? We could, but most of the the discussion has been a simple in/out up to this point. CMD (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The source provided for the broader definition of the U.S. made a clear distinction between parts of the U.S. that were part of the republic and parts that were outside. "Governed by a federal government", which is awkward grammar, is misleading because by definition federations also have state governments. We should get sources supporting the consensus view and see what they say. TFD (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
God no. "Governed by a national government"? As opposed to what, a subnational government? Supernational government? Where on earth are y'all pulling this? Has anyone in Misplaced Pages or, indeed, anywhere ever described a country in such a repetitious way? What makes you feel the need to be the first? --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Another suggested wording
I'm not crazy about that phrasing; to me the "republic" is the "government", and at that point we might as well say "The USA is a federal republic consisting of ." Oddly, I think I understand Golbez' position a bit better in light of this phrasing. Sorry. How about this instead?
I don't think it's contested that the United States governs those places, though the degree of governance is certainly open to debate. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
While vastly less horrid, that still seems to divorce the type of government from the country. Unless I'm mistaken, we don't describe any country like that. The amazing thing is, this is all wording specifically designed to not answer the question that we went to DRN to answer. Simply amazing. Months of discussion and the best they came up with "Let's word it in an obtuse way to avoid having to actually make a decision!" People, it's simple: Is Puerto Rico part of the United States? Is Guam part of the United States? Is American Samoa part of the United States? Is the CNMI part of the United States? Are the USVI part of the United States? Is Palmyra Atoll part of the United States? Are the other uninhabited minor territories part of the United States? These are seven simple yes/no questions that somehow got drowned in volumes and volumes of repetitious, empty discussion. If there is NOT a simple yes/no answer for any of the above, then ... gosh, the status quo kind of works, then, doesn't it. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't there objections from you about a nation being a "republic", i.e.a state of being, as opposed to a republic that is the actual government, which is an instrument of rule? My proposal makes that distinction, and your objection, once again, is highly opinionated and goes against your own criticism. Instead of endlessly picking and poking at the constructive suggestions of others why don't you break away from the endless blur of fuzzy criticisms and simply offer us a constructive suggestion of your own for the lede, for a change?-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Were there? The nation IS a republic. It has a republican form of government but I wouldn't say it was governed by a republic. Iceland is an island governed by a republic; Cyprus is an island at present governed by two republics; but the Republic of Cyprus is not a republic governed by a republican form of a republic. And here's a constructive suggestion: The status quo (you know, the thing that got the second most votes). Bam, problem solved. --Golbez (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"Bam"?? Sounds more like a 'thud' -- same old sand-bag. The above phrase America is a federal republic, governed by a federal government clearly states that "The nation IS a republic" and doesn't say it is ruled by a republic. Hello? Seems you're simply objecting out of habit, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The reason for separating the type of government from the country is in part because of the ambiguity of the term "United States". By doing so, we avoid foreclosing the possibilities that the various territories and possessions are or are not part of the United States. I have argued that the phrase is ambiguous, and from context to context may include or exclude the territories. So yes, you're right in that it avoids making the decision, but I consider that a necessary and even desirable aspect of phrasing the lede, and that we will go on to discuss the status of the territories and possessions in a later section. And you're right, that's not a simple yes-no answer, but I don't think that necessarily pushes us towards the status quo. It has been argued, though not by me, that the status quo does exclude, or at least denigrates the position of the territories and possessions. Does a rephrasing to appease those concerns actually harm the article? Are the points being made actually spurious or tendentious? I don't think so on either point, even if I don't agree with the merits of the argument for explicit inclusion. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It was proposed by some that we somehow split out "United States (country)" and "United States (greater sphere of influence)", since it lacked convenient terms for those like we have for the Realm of New Zealand, Kingdom of Denmark, etc. However, because there are not common terms for those in the US, they are not common terms that exist. We have the UK and its greater sphere, but that greater sphere does not get mentioned because it is not specifically a thing. Just like the US's. This paragraph makes almost no sense. :P --Golbez (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Collect, and others, if the use of 'federal' in the above proposal is "redundant" we can say this:
The United States of America is a federal republic, governed by a federal government, consisting of fifty states and a federal district, as well as several territories with differing degrees of autonomy. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA) and colloquially as America.
This still retains the structure of what was voted on yet distinguishes between the republic and the federal government and it still mentions that territories have differing degrees of autonomy. It's a real shame that after all the original talk here, then on the DRN, that we are back here still entertaining endless minor points of contention. This is as close as it's going to get considering everyone has at least one point of contention. Some, as usual, have endless points of contention and are unable or refuse to offer suggestions of their own, so we need to recognize that and move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The dispute resolution discussion was about whether the U.S. included territories, not whether the territories were part of the republic. The main source to include the territories clearly placed them outside the republic. The compromise wording at DRN reflected that. TFD (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There are no secondary government sources but those below. There is no imaginary "main source". You cannot cite it, there is no direct quote, "the modern U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S." the compromise reflected the territories are a part of the republic, because there are no sources cited in the last half-century to the contrary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The secondary source you have brought up numerous times is rrowrrow's "Empires External and Internal". The sources below are primary which do not define the U.S. but you are using as evidence3 to argue your position. TFD (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The primary documents are the statutes. I am relying on interpretation from secondary government sources from the State Department, Homeland Security, Government Accounting Office, and Census Department. At your request, scholarly sources to follow, but wait, we already did that and you refuse to acknowledge them, without supplying any of your own. "All sources say" is not a source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states." (Sparrow in Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232). Louisiana Purchase and American expansion, 1803-1898 There is only tertiary editor synthesis of 100-year old court cases and superseded 50-year-old resolutions to the contrary, supported by wp:personal attacks to exclude territories, versus secondary government and scholarly sources supported by primary sources to include territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
And, as we all know, Sparrow is the singular authority on the territorial extent of the United States of America. --Golbez (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
insert
@ Golbez, we have reliable scholarly sources in Lawson and Sloane, Juan R. Torruella, Levinson and Sparrow, and others, but none to contradict them, because you and three others have found no alternatives, October 2012-March 2013. Let’s have a sourced online encyclopedia best done by secondary sources, backed up by primary for illustration. To date, after some discussion, instead of a tertiary source confusing governors and mayors and the order of the U.S. branches of government as found in Article I, II, III, used now by editor synthesis to exclude territories without a direct quote,
We now have direct quotes to include territories in the federal republic from international law review articles from Boston College, University of Pennsylvania, and Federal Lawyer, and an academic publication of constitutional historians and political scientists, along with secondary government sources interpreting the primary statute sources from Government Accounting Office, State Department, Homeland Security and the Census Bureau, along with fourteen modern U.S.G. primary sources to illustrate --- modern U.S. territories are included in the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"modern U.S. territories are included in the U.S." Awesome, but why are you bringing this up now? You already had your DRN. you already WON your DRN. NO ONE HAS DISPUTED THE NATURE OF THE DRN WHEN IT COMES TO TERRITORIES WHY ARE YOU CONTINUING TO FIGHT OVER THIS I SERIOUSLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON --Golbez (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Sparrow wrote, "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 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)" None of that, even your quote out of context, supports your opinion that the territories are part of the republic. Even Sparrow says that they are not normally considered to be part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
@ TFD. An academic forum of scholars rewrote their papers for academic publication co-author-edited by Sanford Levinson and Bartholomew Sparrow. Sparrow, the political scientist lead, noted historical context can inform the earlier mistaken view in the field of political science, that the federal republic was solely the states without territories. "The U.S. has always been more than states." Correcting errors of narrow-scope in the fields was the point of constitutional historians and political scientists talking to one another, and the book.
Territories can be a part of a federal republic. They are incorporated prior to statehood by congressional “legacy of the Northwest Territory”. The modern U.S. territories all enjoy more privileges than the last four territories admitted to the Union. You admit Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii were all incorporated into the U.S. federal republic before statehood, but you still misunderstand Sparrow’s direct quote, cited and linked, copied and pasted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Note 1. secondary sources
Here are four secondary U.S.G. sources. A previous editor saw that the secondary sources were supported by primary sources of statutory law and objected. The contrary editor a) claimed the source did not show the "geographical extent" of the U.S., b) Government Printing Office was foisting unsourced original research on the public, and c) misrepresented me.
U.S. Census secondary source interpreting U.S. statutes, Community survey reports. The term "native-born American" refers to "anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area, ... Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands”.
GAO Report to congress, secondary source interpreting Congressional larger organized territories, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution November 1997. Specific organic acts establishing fundamental constitutional protections, full citizenship, republican government and territorial Member of Congress, four organized territories, Samoa with nationals and naturalized U.S. citizens voting.
An American national is either a citizen or someone who “owes permanent allegiance to the U.S..” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(21), (22). Citizenship legislation has been enacted for Puerto Rico (8 U.S.C. § 1402); the Virgin Islands (8 U.S.C. § 1406); Guam (8 U.S.C. § 1407); and the CNMI (sec. 303 of the Covenant, as approved by the Congress). (Under section 302 of the Covenant, authority exists for certain CNMI residents to have elected to become nationals but not citizens of the U.S..) “No such legislation conferring citizenship has been enacted for American Samoa. The Samoans are non-citizen nationals owing permanent allegiance to the United States… hey are not aliens and consequently cannot be excluded or deported."
U.S. Department of State secondary source interpreting Congressional INA statute: U.S. citizenship and nationality. 7 FAM 1112, a. and b. p.3-4, “the term ‘United States’, when used in a geographical sense, means (a) the continental , Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.” and (b) since 1986, “Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America”. Secondary government source, Welcome, A guide for immigrants p.7, “The now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.”
GAO Report to congress, secondary source interpreting Congressional statutes on smaller unorganized territories, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution November 1997. Since the United States established sovereignty over the five larger insular areas, each has pursued greater self-government. None of the nine smaller insular areas has a native population or local government. p.9. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
TheVirginiaHistorian, you said above, "Congress...cannot suspend territorial legislatures." Is there any source for that and what relevance does it have to the discussion? TFD (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Constitution application among a population can only grow, never retract. Congress cannot withdraw citizenship, republican government, constitutional protections "at will" from territories. Secondary source, Lawson and Sloane showed whatever the "theoretical powers" speculated for Congress by Insular Cases, the modern territories have constitutional status "equivalent" to incorporated states. That is, they are a part of the U.S. federal republic in the modern era.
Secondary source is supported by primary sources: Downes v. Bidwell, 1901, that once the Constitution has been extended to an area, its coverage is "irrevocable"; Boumediene v. Bush, 2008- “The Nation’s basic charter cannot be contracted.” That where the Constitution has been once formally extended by Congress to territories, neither Congress nor the territorial legislature can enact inconsistent laws. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The prolonged DRN (and every) discussion was and is all over the map and you are demonstrating the point of endless contentions. Time to move forward. We realize you and Goblez will never be happy with anything, so again, we need to recognize that and move forward. It seems that several participants have bowed out of this 'discussion' such that it is, because of this and this has got to stop. Please don't think for a minute we are going to leave the existing lede version in place after we all had a chance to raise objections, answer numerous questions and voted, several times, simply because you and Golbez think you can do so by endlessly dragging your feet. It's become obvious that this is your 'plan'. You are purposely flooding the page again with more of your lengthy and repetitive discourse. We all voted and are now doing the final adjustments regarding "republic" and "federal government". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, never mind, I'll stop explaining repeatedly how I'm willing to work with this, how I wasn't going to revert or otherwise interfere with your precious version, but never mind. I have nothing more to prove to you. If you want to be willfully blind to my repeated pleas that I actually am NOT acting out of sour grapes, then I won't make them to you anymore. Maybe I'll revert! Who knows! Wildcard, baby! --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your forgot to mention TFD's "voluminous verbosity", in full view of your 'reply'. We need constructive suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers, not only are TFD's posting more concise, they are generally far more intelligible that the discursively indiscriminate firehose wielded by TVH. older ≠ wiser19:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
No not dead, the dream of a sourced online encyclopedia lives on. Editors see in Lawson and Sloane, Juan R. Torruella, Levinson and Sparrow --- that the five organized U.S. territories of today have a constitutional status “equivalent” to incorporated states, they are "a part of the United States". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposal
The United States of America is a federal republic, governed by a federal government, consisting of fifty states and a federal district, as well as several territories with differing degrees of autonomy. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA) and colloquially as America.
Alternate: "The United States of America is a federal republic, governed by a national government, consisting of fifty states and a federal district, as well as several territories with differing degrees of autonomy. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA) and colloquially as America."TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The United States of America is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. The federal government also possesses/administers several territories with differing degrees of autonomy. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA) and colloquially as America.
Not sure which is the most acceptable/least offensive verb to use in the second sentence. Some of the territories are clearly more than mere "possessions", and any disposition would need to be mutual and not unilateral. older ≠ wiser18:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Not bad. though that comma after republic seems superfluous, and I don't think the 'commonly called' etc needs to be changed from what it is now. Administers works for me. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
No source, no good. Second sentence is without sourcing, so it is unsatisfactory. In the GAO 1995 report on Insular Territory, we see only the nine unpopulated places are unorganized, administered by the federal government's Interior Department, NASA and the Army. Otherwise, the Bartholomew Sparrow source shows populated territories are consistent with a federal republic, and today, the U.S. includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories. Do you have a contrary source? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
No matter how much you bluster and misrepresent what sources say, the territories are not participants in the union on equal footing with the other states. If there is some other term that can capture the distinction without requiring a dissertation, please make a suggestion. The relationship of the territories to the U.S. is a function of the federal government. Congress and the executive branch have granted a degree of representation and participation in the federal government, though not equal to the states, and that grant derives from statutory or executive authority, and is not the same status as that of the states participation in the federal government. older ≠ wiser19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Insert: Nonsense, strawman. You have no sources. Since 1805, incorporated territories are never on equal footing with states in U.S. constitutional practice until admitted as states. Sparrow says step-1 possession, step-2 military governor, no citizens, step-3 "legacy of Northwest Territory" prepare for statehood, elected governor, path to citizenship, local self-government, territorial Member of Congress. Modern era territories have more rights than incorporated territories of NM, AZ, AK and HI before them, admitted in the 20th century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Damn it, Bkonrad, don't make me agree with TVH. :P Territories not being on equal footing with the states has nothing to do with if they're part of the country or not. --Golbez (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're right that "equal footing" is really not the issue. I only bring it up as TVH repeatedly makes the bogus claim that territories are equivalent to states. older ≠ wiser12:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a strict exclusionist. The territories are clearly part of the U.S. in certain contexts. I think it is reprehensible how you misrepresent your sources and then twist other editors words. I've nothing to say to you. If others want to try to represent your positions, there may be something to discuss. older ≠ wiser02:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Insert : If what TVH says is indeed true then it would seem you are the one who's blustering, as you didn't refute his claim. . Also, as you mentioned, the territories are not on "equal footing", but this is acknowledged by differing degrees of autonomy, the details of which are distinguished in the text. Remember, this is the first sentence in the lede, so trying to find a phrase that will cover every imaginable detail will in itself be a self defeating task, given all of our 'agreeable' natures. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Even the STATES have differing levels of autonomy. For example, some states aren't allowed to change their voting laws without federal permission. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
TVH's synthesis and distortions have been addressed previously and I have no desire to engage directly with such tendentiousness. Other than that, I'm not sure what your point is. I agree that equal footing is addressed by differing degrees of autonomy. TVH is the one who seems to have some issue with it. older ≠ wiser19:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
insert. You have no sources. I offer direct quotes, secondary sources, primary source backup and links. "The U.S. is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and several territories, all with varying degrees of autonomy." is sourced, there is no source presented to dispute it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You have highly selective quotations that you then distort and misrepresent. As far as I'm concerned, nothing (and I mean nothing) that you say can be trusted. older ≠ wiser02:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
insert... federal republic consists of 50 states, a federal district and several territories all with differing degrees of autonomy.
The polities are of four descriptions:
a) 50 states with or without restrictions on voting rights discretion, statewide, certain counties, et al,
b) a federal district, with Article I federal courts of two year appointments, presidential electors, frequent municipal reorganization by congress, territorial Member of Congress, et al,
c) five organized territories with local autonomy but self-governance less than states, Article III courts with life appointments, may be constitutional writing authority, without presidential electors, territorial Member of Congress, et al,
Pretty good. I think there should be an adjective before "states" signifying that they have some autonomy as well. Not like French "departments" for example. The para grants "autonomy" to territories. Separating them is much better for readability but lost the adjective for states, I think.
(edit conflict)I have actually read TVHs, and everyone else comments, in their entirety. To answer Golbez: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes. All the territories are part of the United States.
TVH has provided reliable sources that verify that they are. TVH's comments may appear to be long winded, and some people when the comments are not concise get all ignore when that happens, but at least they are provided to independently determine the quality of those references. I understand others do not agree with me, guess what, others don't agree with you either. It's OK, we are all entitled to our opinions. That being said, one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages is WP:VER.
Please provide reliable sources that explicitly state that the United States excludes Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, and all of its uninhabited territories.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Er, problem: I don't think even TVH has suggested that the minor outlying islands are part of the U.S., which is why he consistently says five inhabited territories. As for a source: The CIA World Factbook. Really, all of this is the government's fault for not saying one way or another. Some agencies say they are, while others (like the Census and CIA) leave out the territories by default. I don't really care what third party sources have to say, and neither should anyone involved in this, and that was the numbers game trap y'all fell in to. --Golbez (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
That being said, I understand that there are those who disagree with this, this is the reason why the wording that was agreed at DRN, is a compromise. It leaves room for those different context where some sources only include the continental U.S., only include the 50 states and federal district, and that include all of the United States. Am I 100% happy with the compromise language? No, that's why it's called compromise language.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
TVH has not provided a single reliable source for his viewpoint. If you want to discuss the issue, then present them. To kick off RCLC's request for a source, I present a secondary source, Encyclopedia of World Constitutions, "The United States of America is a federal state comprising 50 autonomous regional provinces, called states, plus the District of Columbia, which serves as the capital."TFD (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
TVH's sourcing, as usual, is utterly inconsistent with Misplaced Pages practices. Executive and administrative publications are not secondary sources, they are not reliable sources for the claims he is trying to make using them. Furthermore, in every case I've actually taken the time to read through one of his sources, the source either explicitly limits itself to a very specific purpose (such as the 7 FLM source) or is outright not scholarly in the least (the "Welcome to America" pamphlet). Finally, his arguments presume, without giving any semblance of justification, that the outcome of this discussion should be controlled by "official" government sources. We aren't talking about politics here, we're talking about the meaning of a phrase, which is a linguistics problem... and linguistics problems are resolved by looking at actual usage in the real world. In consideration of this, the fact that it has been brought up repeatedly during my participation here, and the fact that TVH has continued to bombard this and other venues with the same or similar sources ad nauseam, I propose that TVH's continued participation in this discussion is disruptive. I don't like to make these kinds of pronouncements nor to discourage participation, but I'm seeing this discussion become derailed by arguments about sourcing yet again when it is well settled that all sides have some reliable nonprimary source working in their favor. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, TVH's obsession with rehashing the argument that HE WON A FEW DAYS AGO is getting a little distressing. If he got his way, in six months would he still be telling us about Sparrow and how the US includes, of course, the fifty states? Maybe we should head straight to Arbcom, do not pass go. --Golbez (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd love some binding resolution to this quagmire, but you and I both know that's not happening anytime soon. I wish we had some viable solution to propose (I don't mean the status quo :-P) that we could hold an RFC on and at least get more eyes on this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Mendaliv, with all due respect, can you link us to the specific WP policy that says "Executive and administrative publications are not secondary sources, they are not reliable sources" in no uncertain terms? TVH's sources are not primary, or tertiary. I have seen governmental sources used throughout WP. e.g.the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress is referred to frequently, while articles like United States Census Bureau indeed use government sources for references. While I agree we should not let the sources be "controlled" by the US gov I don't think that's the case here at all since the US gov is indeed a body of elected officials belonging to separate parties, often in opposition to one another, not some lone dictator, so I would think your usage of the term 'control' is a little off the mark. What you seem to be suggesting is that we should ignore all these official sources and let one author of some 'world constitutions' encyclopedia "control" matters. The government is a body that functions in the "real world". If as you say "all sides have some reliable nonprimary source working in their favor", then we should go with those "reliable nonprimary source"(s) that indeed correspond with the official sources. -- In any case, we need to see some links to the WP policy that supports your contention regarding government sources. The only policy that comes close to this is this one, but the qualifying items 1-5 don't fit the description -- but again, governmental sources are often used for government related articles and articles about U.S. history. Finally, TFD's encyclopedia source is a tertiary source and WP:Reliable sources says:Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. (emphasis added) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:PSTS, WP:V, WP:SYN, etc. I'm not saying that such sources cannot be used period, but their use in this case is absolutely inappropriate because the statement being sourced is not what the source states and other sources demonstrate that there is controversy. And as we're in a lede, we aren't engaged in detailed discussion; we're giving an overview, and tertiary sources are perfect for this (by the way, I reserve the possibility that these legal encyclopedias are secondary sources given they frequently almost exclusively cite primary sources for their arguments). Let's go to WP:RSN if you disagree. It's absolutely ridiculous to bind ourselves to politically-motivated definitions that are explicitly limited in scope, and which are made to prevent these sorts of arguments from happening because (surprise) the argument that the territories and possessions are not part of the United States is not patently nonsensical. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It's like you're saying that using official publications from the Ford motor company is inappropriate for sourcing articles about Ford automobiles. Nonsense. Again, government sources are used to cite governmental topics all the time throughout WP. And it would be nice if, when you link to a WP policy page, you would also highlight the actual passage that supports your claim. Again, if both sides have secondary sources that corroborate official sources then we should go with that winning combination. So far all we have from TFD is an encyclopedia about constitutions around the world, not even specific to the USA, and his Insular cases, well addressed by TVH in terms of American nationals, citizenship, et al. Call the encyclopedia a 'secondary source' if you must but it hardly measures up to the all the other sources that say otherwise. And what is the average reader going to think when they see WP making claims that are completely contrary to all the official sources? It's no wonder WP is not considered a reliable source in colleges and most of academia, and, at least here in California, WP is blocked on high school computers. Seems we have all just witnessed a first hand demonstration as to why that is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The government sources provided by TVH are all either primary or tertiary, depending on whether they are being used as evidence or as sources. For example a government document that says Puerto Ricans are citizens is a primary source used to argue that therefore the country is part of the U.S., while a document that says PR is part of the U.S. is tertiary because it summarizes information. The encyclopedia of constitutional law on the other hand would normally be considered secondary because the article is signed by an expert. Anyway, Burnett and Marshall explain the constitutional position in their article in Foreign in a Domestic Sense: Puerto Rico, American Expansion, and the Constitution, Duke University Press, 2001, p. 1,
"The phrase that entitles this book, and which describes the constitutional status of the "territories" of the United States, appeared in an opinion of the United States Supreme Court much noted in its time, and crucial to the period of United States imperialism a century ago but almost forgotten since then: Dowes v. Bidwell. This was one of a series of decisons known as the Insular Cases, which in 1901 gave legal sanction to the colonization of islands taken by the United States at the close of the Spanish-American War: Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Instead, they were something in between: in the words of Justice Edward Douglass White, whose concurrence in Downes would eventually be adopted by a unanimous Supreme Court, they were "foreign to the United States in a domestic sense." They had not been, he explained, "incorporated" into the United States upon their acquisition from Spain, but were, in the phrase the Court would later adopt, "unincorporated territories," belonging to-but not part of-the United States."
TVH has already cited material that puts the Insular cases into proper context and you are simply repeating arguments that have been several times addressed:
GAO Report to congress, secondary source interpreting Congressional larger organized territories, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution November 1997. Specific organic acts establishing fundamental constitutional protections, full citizenship, republican government and territorial Member of Congress, four organized territories, Samoa with nationals and naturalized U.S. citizens voting.
An American national is either a citizen or someone who “owes permanent allegiance to the U.S..” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(21), (22). Citizenship legislation has been enacted for Puerto Rico (8 U.S.C. § 1402); the Virgin Islands (8 U.S.C. § 1406); Guam (8 U.S.C. § 1407); and the CNMI (sec. 303 of the Covenant, as approved by the Congress). (Under section 302 of the Covenant, authority exists for certain CNMI residents to have elected to become nationals but not citizens of the U.S..) “No such legislation conferring citizenship has been enacted for American Samoa. The Samoans are non-citizen nationals owing permanent allegiance to the United States… hey are not aliens and consequently cannot be excluded or deported."
Again government sources are used all the time here at WP, and the last time I checked, the USA page and this talk page are part of WP. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
None of your sources say that the territories have been incorporated into the U.S. See synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Your source says Congress has extended citizenship to PR, but does not say it has incorporated PR. Your synthesis on nationality is even weaker because all residents of U.S. territories have always been U.S. nationals. TFD (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't mix words. We are not trying to saying anything about "incorporated" in the lede -- we are asserting that the territories are indeed part of the US, and the sources do indeed say this:
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. As TVH has maintained, several times, no one has found any scholarly source to refute these sources i.e. none say they “exclude territories” from the Union.
Department of Homeland Security secondary source, interpreting U.S. statutes, Welcome to the United States A Guide for New Immigrants Pages 77, 83 and 101, "Today, the U.S. includes 50 states, DC and ."
Secondary government source, Welcome, A guide for immigrants p.7, “The now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.”
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.
-- Your argument is not even academic, and a source doesn't necessarily have to be written by someone with a Phd. in history to be authoritative -- and you have provided no sources that says the territories are not part of the United States, still. We have plenty of sources that say they do, along with the Constitution that also supports this fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Sparrow says on p. 232 that the territories are not part of a "federal nation-state" but that together both are part of an "empire". Lawson and Sloane reiterate on pp.1160-1162 that the U.S. government considers PR "unicorporated" and claims that it has failed in its obligations to treat PR as a separate, "affililiated state." Torruella on page 326 merely says that in his opinion Taft erred in not deciding the constitution extended to Puerto Rico. Basically you are misrepresenting left-wing opinion about the mistreatment of U.S. territories to argue the opposite of what they are saying. The U.S. government sources are not secondary and are just grasping at straws. They do not overrule official statements, laws, treaties and judgments of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government and are contradicted by other tertiary government sources, such as the CIA factbook. I suggest you read each of the secondary sources you presented in full so that you can understand the facts and arguments they present. TFD (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
insert
You have no direct quote for your misrepresentation. You see "empire" and launch off into wp:madeup imagination-America. Sparrow says territories are incorporated before statehood. The federal republic began with territory to the Mississippi River by the 1783 Treaty of Paris. “Territory outside the republic” was incorporated by “democratic empire” in three stages: 1. possession, 2. appointed governor, 3. Territories are incorporated into the republic in preparation for statehood, the “legacy of the Northwest Territory”: on popular referendum accepting constitution, congress and federal courts, then republican self-government, path to citizenship, territorial Member of Congress. The modern territories are a part of the federal republic as cited, directly quoted, and linked to Sparrow, "At present, the includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories ..." which you refuse to admit.
U.S. government are secondary interpretation of the primary, "laws treaties and judgements". More nonsense, I do not say they "overrule" the primary documents, WP policy says editors original research and synthesis is not admissible, yours is not. You have no secondary sources to say the primary documents can be applied to the modern U.S. territories in such a way so as to "exclude" them from the U.S. federal republic. There are secondary government and scholarly sources to include them. Your adamant refusal to admit, "At present, the includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories ..." requires administrative intervention only because you have no counter-source, and cannot find one over the course of four months. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
United States publications are merely statements of the will of the United States government. The definition of words is based on their real-world usage. The lede as we are wording it does not say "The United States defines itself as X", but "The United States is X". While this might be appropriate if what we were saying was uncontroversial or patently obvious, our extensive discussion has demonstrated that it is both controversial and extremely nuanced, and there are sources to support this.
Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying primary sources are inappropriate... as you say, it would be ridiculous to prohibit articles on automobiles from being sourced to the specifications published by their respective manufacturers. However, it would be inappropriate, and probably prohibited, is to take one of those spec sheets that describes the method used to calculate the vehicle's fuel efficiency in miles per gallon and use it to source an statement that fuel efficiency for all vehicles is calculated by that same method. That's what TVH is doing with his sources, especially the statutory ones, and it has been pointed out repeatedly. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The parallel is U.S.G. statutes at law is the primary sourcemanufacturer's manual, and GAO, State Department, Census interpretation is made in secondary source is "Chilton's" (for the leftists cause it includes brand advertisements, fruit of the poisoned tree, but also alternative parts), or "Consumer Reports" (for the conservative, State is an independent branch and GAO is independent auditing). It is nonsense that a secondary source on the U.S.G. is disqualified as TFD proposes, just because it is not fringe-madeup without sources, but references U.S. Code as primary sources. I do not rely on my own conclusion from reading primary sources of current law or 50-year old U.N. resolutions to conclude that modern territories are included, I rely on the judgment of reliably published secondary sources, both government and scholarly. Where are the "exclude territory" sources? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
1. Where to begin to answer the dumps above. There are no sources for a direct quote “territories are not a part of the U.S.” Since February, I use the interpretation of statutes of by State Department, Homeland Security, GAO, and Census, for my understanding of international status, acquiring citizenship, constitutional status, and “native-born American”. I do not rely on my own interpretation of tertiary sources like CIA Factbook, confusing governors and mayors, or the Constitution's article order. I am not led astray by legal digests to report a case to the Talk page as “remanded” when it was “upheld” constitutionally, “upheld” in law, and “remanded” for a formula Dept. of Health amended in its confusion after the initial trial.
2. The federal republic extends to people in the five organized territories with republican forms of government in self-governing autonomy. The nine unpopulated possessions directly governed by the Federal government’s Interior Department (7), NASA (1) and U.S. Army (1), no others. The term “incorporated” in law, opposed to common usage, is strawman, a judicial fiction of Justice White without statutory precedence. Congress has never used such language prior to admitting any state. Just as strawman, ‘territories are not equal to states’ to imagine they are not a part of the U.S., when scholarly sources say modern territories have a constitutional status “equivalent” to (judicially) incorporated states. Lawson and Sloane scholars say so independently of U.S.G.
3. Homeland Security publishes a guide for immigrants who would be citizens, interpreting statutory law in force. It is vetted by their department attorneys, just as all publications by the U.S. Government Printing Office. Editors object that international law does not acknowledge U.S. citizenship, or island referendums, locally elected legislatures, governors or Members of Congress. There was a two-week fight before ETs stopped objection to their existence, given .gov address and official title. But their existence is never acknowledged. U.S.V.I. must be like British Empire B.V.I., although B.V.I has no Member of Parliament, but U.S.V.I. has no appointed governor and a Member of Congress. But all of that objection to the legitimacy of the U.S.G. and its constitutional practice in the modern era is wp:fringe, which is why we need additional intervention here.
4. The article should NOT be exclusively U.S.G. sourced, but it should not exclude U.S.G as illegitimate, hence Sparrows scholarly conclusion after tracing the historical process of making territories a part of the federal republic prior to statehood --- as for all territories since that of 1783 Treaty of Paris --- and for the modern U.S. territories, "At present, the includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories ..." --- APART from U.S.G. and scholarly statement, counter-U.S.G. sources should be reported, including - Three U.S. territories are monitored on the United Nations list of “Non-self governing territories” in 2012, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.” --- To date Dec 2012-Mar 2013, editors here have found no other sourced counter-U.S.G. sources which apply to the modern era U.S. territories.
5. The lede sentence might read, "The U.S. is a federal republic of a three-branch national government, including 50 states, a federal district, and various territories, all with varying autonomy.", or something like it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
No. TVH's proposal would require a consensus that the United States includes territories; there is no such consensus. As I support the ambiguity position, I cannot support this wording. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
. We can try out another, we are in a process, but this one IS ambiguous, “federal district, and various territories”, and “all with varying autonomy”. There is NO source to say territories and the District have identically autonomy to states, or they-would-BE --- states. There is only scholarly source to say territories with elected governors and a path to citizenship are constitutionally “equivalent” to incorporated states. (Is there anything comparable for the municipality of DC?) No one supposes states are not judicially incorporated, though Congress has never EXPRESSLY said they were; it is a judicial term of art invented by Justice White, and not found in U.S. statutes, nor is it in common usage. Thus NO source can be found to say “the official U.S. of A. is incorporated 50 states, District and Palmyra Atoll.” No source, no good. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
If you think that language does not mean the country includes the territories, then I think we're dealing with a deeper problem than sourcing. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to point out, the continuous pointing out of NASA by TVH should highlight the ridiculousness of tacking ourselves to government sources. How the hell would anything that NASA could publish have any bearing on this case? It would be like the Department of Education issuing an opinion on workplace safety in textile mills. Why in the world would we use a source like that? Finally, consider this: of the useful government sources TVH cites (i.e., those that aren't essentially propaganda or indoctrination materials) every last one contains some qualification or limitation on its definition, usually that it limits the use of that definition to a very specific purpose... and the reason for doing this? Convenience and readability; if they didn't define it that way, they'd have to say "United States and its territories and possessions" every time they wanted to use the phrase, or else someone would make the argument that a law lacks jurisdiction over the territories because it does not explicitly make it so. Folks, this is basic statutory construction; statutes do not represent actual usage, which is the real benchmark of meaning. Should the person article talk about corporate entities because 1 U.S.C.§ 1 defines "person" as including corporate entities? Heck no. In short, TVH must provide a source that unequivocally states the United States includes territories in all contexts (the Sparrow quote taken in context doesn't do this). I have provided sources that state it excludes territories (Black's Law Dictionary) and that it's ambiguous (Am. Jur. and C.J.S.). This spray-and-pray tactic, wherein you're flinging every source you possibly can in the hopes that one will stick, is enormously disruptive and will not magically result in some kind of victory after all this time. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Your reading of a court case which says, “upheld” twice and “remanded” as --- “reversed” --- is based SOLELY on the inadequacy inherent in tertiary sources, such as Am. Jur. and C.J.S. --- It-is-NOT-your-fault, it’s the tertiarys. But wiki-editors should not be caught in the same careless unsourced trap, we favor secondary sources with primary source illustration. Next, Black’s surveys inclusively, the jurisprudence of two-hundred years, without citing what is currently in force, a disadvantage for anyone doing legal research for present-day use, a caution made at every law library reference service. We want a current country-article for a sourced online encyclopedia of the modern era.
As to direct federal administration of uninhabited territory which you again deny without sources, your concern went to NASA, which I took from my notes, but 7 of 9 is verifiable by link now, this morning. Checking Nov 1997 GAO report on U.S. Insular Areas, previously I reported currently Interior Dept. (7), NASA (1), Army (1). In 1997, it was Interior (7), Navy (1), Army (1). THE SOURCE of course reports the "five larger insular areas" continue to increase their self-government, which you refuse to admit, but have no source to deny.
Direct Federal administration for seven uninhabited “smaller insular areas” by Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Department of Interior --- for Palmyra Atoll, Navassa, Johnston Atoll (daily administration under Defense Nuclear Agency 1997), Baker, Howland, Jarvis, Midway, p.41, 49, 52, 54, 55, 56, 60, 63. U.S. Navy administered Kingman Reef 1974, p.57. Wake was administered by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command 1997. P.63 As I remember NASA got Wake, Army got Kingman, but I'll have to get back to you for the current status.
The article seems to be well-written, having once been GA, I guess. History is merged in with culture, "explaining" why the US attained preeminence in a particular area. The "whys" should be rm IMO and moved to "History." The culture should tell that we have the Smithsonian, Metropolitan Opera House, or produce many films, or whatever. Current situation. Student7 (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
DRN result should be used
This has gone on far too long - a compromise was reached at DRN and should be used. A lot of the current "stuff" appears purely dilatory and there is no reason to delay longer about the consensus lead arrived at through much discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:CONSENSUS. It does not mean "unanimity" it meand that we used compromise in an organized manner and got a result. Not liking the result of compromise is an improper argument for rejecting it - we got there after a lot of discussion, and there is no rational basis for saying that DRN is of no vale - it is set up for that specific purpose, and we got to wording that most accepted. Cheers - but it is tendentious to delay using the compromise a single day more. Collect (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep in mind that if you implement the wording about "a country governed by a republic" I may be forced to require a citation for that wording. Coming up with that novel new phrasing rises to the level of original research. Maybe y'all should have stuck with the territories question. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:LEAD - the lead is a summary, and thus does not need internal cites if the basic text in the body of the article has cites. A "republic" is a "form of government", a nation or country is not "a form of government." Cheers - now is there any reason for this weird excursion? Collect (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing in the article that justifies this strange description of "a country governed by a republic", considering that phrasing has never been used before. Therefore, it requires a source, either in the intro or later in the article. Shouldn't be hard to find a source justifying that description, right? I mean, according to Google, "a country governed by a republic" has been used a total of one time, but on the other hand it's discussing Aristotle, so maybe that gives it some intellectual cachet? I tried some other variants but those had even fewer results, which is to say, zero. --Golbez (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Would "with a republican form of government" satisfy your cavil here? Else I do not see precisely what the cavil would seek to establish. BTW, seeking "exact matches for wording" is silly - no policy or guideline of Misplaced Pages makes that sort of requirement at all. I trust, of course, that you acknowledge that the US has "a republican form of government". Collect (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Please explain why "is a federal republic" or whatever is insufficient for this article yet is sufficient for every other article. Yes, the US has a republican form of government and it is a republic. But you aren't saying "a country governed by a republican form a government", though as I recall that might have been suggested (or I was pre-emptively making fun of it, either way). "France is a republic". "Russia is a federal republic." "Belgium is a monarchy." These are uncontroversial sentences. What is your fascination with trying out a new construction on this article? Is this so you can say "is an X governed by a republic" to say that some definition of "X" allows for territories and some does not, thus accomplishing the desired waffliness? --Golbez (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I found scores of Questia and Highbeam articles with substantially similar wording - so your limiting of it to Aristotle fails <g>. And the redundant "governed by" is not in my suggestion, so your jocular dismissal of an earnest attempt to find wording you would accept is not a great idea. France is a nation which has had monarchies, dictatorships, republics and near-anarchy <g> in the past. So your analogy fails on that point as well. The purpose of WP:CONSENSUS is finding wording most editors can live with - it is not "perfection". it is not WP:TRUTH, it is what the consensus policy says to try to achieve, It is disheartening indeed to see people so enamored of their own position that they will never accept compromise, and what usualy happens is their "truth" gets lost. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I know, it IS disheartening to see you so enamored of your "consensus" solution that you can't see why it's so bad. Yes, France is a nation that is currently a republic. In the past, France was a monarchy. However, we don't have an article on "France (country separate from its government type)", we have an article on the French Republic ... Now I'm wondering why you reject that wording as somehow inaccurate. Are you planning to inform the rest of Misplaced Pages that we're doing it wrong? --Golbez (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I fear you think snarkiness is a rational substitute for discussion, and I am quite done with you if you think this is how Misplaced Pages consensus is arrived at. Perhaps you should have a gallon of tea or so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Question: should we come up with a phrasing that isn't horrific by your standards, Golbez, would you be able to agree to a lede phrasing that leaves open both inclusion and exclusion to other editors' standards? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, asked and answered. I'm tired of repeating myself on what I would do if and when an intro was implemented. But, for you, whom I respect, I'll repeat: All I care is that it's properly sourced and doesn't create an inconsistency. I feel I've been very clear on this point. I conceded the territorial question to the community the moment we went into DRN. I don't give a shit about that part. I care about people thinking that this is a sentence that should exist on Misplaced Pages. DRN should have been about the broad strokes; somehow it turned into a committee designing a sentence. I didn't agree to that part of the process and I'm offended at the suggestion I should agree to it because they tacked it on to a legitimate debate. But it should not be this difficult to create an intro that handles the issue. --Golbez (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
@ Golbez, there need be no consensus for a sourced contribution of knowledge. As there IS a source that the U.S. includes territories, are we really going back to December, “That’s just what an expert says, so its not a fact admissible at Misplaced Pages.”? That was 1-4 days, now its 7-4 with Buzity gone? You were keeping count in December.
Possible editor decision tree in four steps: 1. Find sources to include territories at ‘United States’, include territories. 2. Find sources to both include and exclude territories at ‘United States’, write embracing language, or put secondary view in a footnote. 3. Find unsourced inconsistency with this sourced statement in another article, make a sourced correction there. 4. Find sourced inconsistency in another article applying to modern era U.S. territories by direct quote, bring the source to this article, then write embracing language at ‘United States’ Talk page.
My first few proposals in October-November 2012 were variations of “U.S. federal republic includes 50 states and DC .” --- listing organized territories with U.S. citizens etc., etc., and 9 unpopulated administered directly by the federal government, as sourced. You removed it, we discussed at Talk, you let me post it, something like had been up before you said, then you removed it without discussion at talk or counter-sources. (?!) You say no one, no one, has done anything on subsidiary pages, but I made a SOURCED contribution at Territories of the United States for a new section “Territories in the 20th Century, and I think there have been five friendly edits improving it over a couple months. Why would other sourced wiki-editing not be similarly successful on other U.S. subsidiary pages, your voiced concern not seeing the "forest" of subsidiary pages for the "trees" of sourced contributions? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Let’s let the discussion here inform the language selection in the style of the Constitutional Convention drafts. Please craft your own first sentence below noting common DRN language:
DRN language discussed, “The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district as well as several territories...The territories have differing degrees of autonomy.”
"The United States of America is a _____
, ,
, ,
, , ,
, , , ,
, , "
to follow.
The United States of America is afederal republicconsisting of fifty states, a federal district,fiveterritoriesand nine possessions withdiffering degrees of autonomy.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice, but I would simply say The US is a...republic, ruled by a federal government.... Simple and includes all the ideas of republic and ruled by. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This is actually not too far off. I don't see any basis or need to enumerate territories and possessions. Most sources use refer to them all as territories. And the federal government has many more "possessions" other than the uninhabited territories. I also don't see the need for Gwillhickers distinction between being a federal republic and being a republic ruled by a federal government. If anything, the latter formulation is problematic in terms of the shared sovereignty between states and the federal government -- i.e., the states are not, strictly speaking, "ruled" by the federal government. older ≠ wiser17:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The "consensus" was a compromise where we would say the country includes territories but not make any constitution claims. Hence in reply to my comment, "The "federal constitutional republic"...unambiguously does not include possessions" (23:49, 3 March 2013), Mendaliv suggested "The United States of America ... is a country, governed by a federal constitutional republic" (00:07, 4 March 2013). Most editors then voted for a similar version "The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic" (Option 9). The compromise consensus did not say the U.S. is a federal republic. TFD (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I see, but it does seem like splitting hairs to say the U.S. includes territories (at least in some contexts) but that the federal republic does not. While I could go along with saying something like the U.S. is a governed by a federal republic, saying the U.S. is a republic, ruled by a federal government seems an unhelpfully redundant circumlocution that doesn't actually help clarify anything. What is an uninitiated reader to make of this. The article republic says it is a form of government. So this then would in effect be saying the U.S. is a is a form of government ruled by another form of government. older ≠ wiser17:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Jesus Christ people, here is how you do it:
"The United States of America is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district, as well as several territories." ... "The country also has several territories in the Caribbean and Pacific" and rely on text in the political divisions section to further elaborate on the territorial question and which ones are included in which sources or what not.
Is this sufficient or do I need to add some extra-repetitive terminology in there? Am I allowed to implement this or will it get reverted because the DRN squad didn't consensusize it? --Golbez (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
But Sparrow argues that because the U.S. includes insular territories, it is not a federal republic: "The rulings of the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases fundamentally challenges and, I would argue, ultimately belies the existence of the United States as a federal republic." Even sources that say the term U.S. can include unincorporated territories do not claim they have been incorporated into the federal republic. The term they appear to favor for the republic plus territories is "empire." TFD (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It still seems like splitting hairs. The critics are pointing out that the U.S. doesn't really meet the ideals of being a federal republic (in some ur-sense of the term), but for most common applications, it would not be incorrect to say that the U.S. is a federal republic. And it is also not incorrect to say that the U.S. includes territories (at least in some contexts). Then there is the gray area that has been causing so much dissension for so long, in that it is not entirely correct, or is at least misleading, to suggest that the territories are constituent or incorporated parts of the federal republic. I'm quite OK with leaving the messy details out of the first sentence even if that does mean there is some fuzziness in the wording such that it can be read to support either interpretation. older ≠ wiser19:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
who caaaaaaaaaaaaaaares. The DRN wasn't about people claiming it's not a federal republic, the DRN was about the question of territories. If some people want to argue the country isn't a federal republic then they can start their own damn DRN. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
We are using Sparrow because he is the source for the claim that the U.S. includes the insular territories. And he says (p. 30 of source above) that scholars only consider the 50 states plus DC to be the federal republic. So the U.S. is a federal republic (50 states + DC) plus insular territories. Since there is no source that the federal republic includes the insular territories we cannot say it does. Does in make any sense to say that uninhabited islands have entered into a federation with the states? TFD (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
What the hell do people think they are doing by making major changes to the consensus language without proper discussion - as though this were an elementary school playground? WP:CONSENSUS is clear - discuss before making major changes else the entire DR/N board is a pure and simple laughingstock. Collect (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
As I did not make any such change, but am seeking to see where any consensus for change would be, your post is utter snark. Congrats. Collect (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Try dealing with facts. I asked if that change would make sense - I did not "vote to change" anything at all, and your posts are getting far beyond any rational level of discussion which is what this talk page is for. Cheers - now please write the truth when you make assertions.Collect (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Reminder about primary sources
To those who claim that some of the sources presented by TVH, are 'Primary Sources' please be reminded that primary sources are authored by people who were close to or part of the event in question. The sources in question are modern day publications and not authored by persons involved in the acquisition and establishing of territories -- but for those of you who still insist or regarding them as primary sources WP Reliable Source policy says:
Again, no one has synthesized new meaning and made claims other than what the given sources state, that the territories are part of and ruled by the US/Federal gov. Besides there are other secondary sources that are consistent with what these sources maintain, and once again, no one has produced a RS source that specifically says the territories are not part of, or not ruled by, the US. We have the Sparrow source which Mendaliv, TVH, Collect and myself (RCLC and Amadscientist?) approve of. However the lede need not be sourced if the summary claims are supported by and cited in the text. In any event, the next step is to get these sources into the article, either way. There still may be some reservations about whether we should say federal republic, constitutional republic, or what have you, (all of which seem to be saying the same basic thing), but the important issue concerns territories, and as Golbez and others have maintained, we should make sure the lede is consistent with the rest of the article, and ultimately other related articles.
Hat's off to the DRN volunteers and the editors who showed respect for the WP consensus process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"Hat's off to the DRN volunteers and the editors who showed respect for the WP consensus process." Interesting how you tacked that on to an edit that otherwise was about sourcing, not consensus. Are you saying that some editors did not show respect for the "consensus process"? --Golbez (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If a U.S. government document says the disputed territory of Navassa is part of the U.S., then it is a primary source for the position of the U.S. government and a tertiary source summarizing what secondary sources say. Presumably the authors did not base their conclusions on a reading of treaties, UN resolutions, laws and court cases, but on what legal experts have said in secondary sources. In the first case all we say is that the U.S. claims the island. In the second case we are unable to determine the weight of the conclusions. It is preferrable to use an article in a reliable source that explains the conflicting views and the degree of acceptance each has.
BTW saying that a source says Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens to argue that PR is part of the U.S. is synthesis. That has been the weakness of TVH's arguments all along - arguing a conclusion from information in sources that do not make the same conclusion.
insert The weakness is in your restatement of the argument. Since 1952 Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S. because Puerto Ricans said so in referendum, and six times over fifty years, the last in 2012. Editors may say islanders are incompetent to vote for themselves --- well, at least when they vote 4% for independence, 96% to be a part of the U.S.. Lawson and Sloane say PR votes to be a commonwealth for the economic advantage they would lose as a state. Self-interest may not be politically correct, but democracy is not predictable in a logically deterministic way. Congress will not make Puerto Rico a state, nor will Cuba, without permission of the people, however illogical the will of the people may seem to editors.
Lets forget about ideology straight-jackets, and write about the people today included in the U.S.. No one in PR voted in 2012 to stop Medicaid and join Cuba on the basis of Justice White's Insular Cases; they do not apply, PR is incorporated by organic act, referendum, and the "incorporated" union is observed to have been established in federal district court and federal circuit court. It is not for TFD to say Puerto Ricans have NOT said so based on a century-old court case superseded by statute and the people. Puerto Ricans (96%-4%) say they are a part of the U.S., most recently in 2012. Any counter-sources in the modern era? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
You need to read what the policy said more carefully. If a source says a river flows from north to south it is not "synthesis" to say it flows from a high elevation to a lower one and does not "advance a new position". i.e.If Puerto Ricans are US citizens because they live in Puerto Rico it is hardly synthesis to say Puerto Rico is part of the US because we are not advancing a new position. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
But if you're arguing that Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S. because Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, that had better be exactly what the sources support. In fact, they are citizens because the Congress said so. As such, the fact that they are citizens says nothing about whether Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S. older ≠ wiser00:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
To say that P.R. is part of the U.S. is not advancing a new position. Look at the examples they give in the Synthesis section: The examples involve giant leaps to new positions. e.g.U.N. supports peace, but since it's inception there have been 160 wars.(!) This hardly compares to citing incidental items. i.e.Water flows from high to low, or P.R.'s are U.S. citizens because P.R. is part of the U.S., where one idea naturally flows into and supports the other and doesn't involve advancing a new position. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If only it were as simple as an uncontroversial claim that water flows down. But precisely how Puerto Rico is or is not a part of the U.S. is a major part of what is controversial in this case. As such you cannot extrapolate that because they are citizens, therefore PR is part of the U.S. or older ≠ wiser02:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not "unconventional" to note P.R. is part of the U.S. because its citizens are U.S. citizens. Because this idea may be controversial to some is beside the point. We are only talking about how a particular source is being used, and again, no one has taken anything and advanced an entirely new position. e.g.The U.N. advocates war because 160 wars have occurred since its inception. (Synthesis/new position in bold.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
They are citizens because Congress passed a law that made them citizens in 1917. The US Supreme Court decided in Balzac v. Porto Rico 1922 that granting citizenship to Puerto Rico did not make the territory part of the U.S. On the other hand, had they been incorporated into the U.S., there would have no need for citizenship legislation. TFD (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
And there you have it, Gwillhickers. The mere contention that they're citizens does not lead to a conclusion that PR is part of the country. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Not so fast. On what basis were they granted citizenship? Also, when you (TFD) say "...did not make the territory part of the U.S.", are you citing the actual minutes to the case (a primary source, btw), or is this your synthesis? (Answer to both questions appreciated)-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Referring to primary sources without interpretation is not synthesis. Supreme Court decisions are reliable sources for what they say. However, I have provided sources already. See Sparrow, p. 233, for example, and you can read the sources provided for the article, and the case itself, by following the sources at Balzac v. Porto Rico. I do not know what you mean by the "basis" for the law but Congress has authority to legislate. TFD (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Quote from the case for completeness: "It was further settled in Downes v. Bidwell, , and confirmed by Dorr v. United States, that neither the Philippines nor Porto Rico was territory which had . . . become a part of the United States, as distinguished from merely belonging to it . . . ." Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) (emphasis supplied).
Secondary source supporting the contention that Balzac held Puerto Rico wasn't part of the United States: "The petitioner in relied primarily on the Jones Act, the Organic Act of Puerto Rico, passed on March 2, 1917, to support their assertion that Puerto Rico was incorporated into the United States. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument and held that if Congress intended to change the relationship between Puerto Rico and the Union, it would do so explicitly." Alan Tauber, The Empire Forgotten: The Application of the Bill of Rights to U.S. Territories, 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 147, 165 (2006) (footnotes omitted).
Secondary source supporting that Balzac is still good law: "While some Warren Court justices questioned the validity of the Insular Cases, more recent decisions by the Rehnquist Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the Insular Cases, Balzac, and, thus, the legitimacy of the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine." Carlos R. Soltero, The Supreme Court Should Overrule the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine and End One Hundred Years of Judicially Condoned Colonialism, 22 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 1, 3-4 (2001) (footnotes omitted). A review of Shepard's Citations supports this conclusion. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, precisely correct. Read TVH's government sources and statutes in their entirety. All of them are of explicitly limited scope. And as I've been saying, are politically motivated. Do we say Kashmir is part of India because the Indian government says so? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Insert : The opinion that the government sources in question are "politically motivated" is indeed an opinion, and WP policy is clear about what constitutes a primary source and does allow for their use:Primary sources are original materials. Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary... Also, do we say Kashmir is not part of India because 'Joe Blow' simply didn't mention it in his encyclopedia article on India? Isn't that also synthesis? Again, if you're going to challenge the gov sources we need more than the opinion that they're politically motivated. Again, government sources are used throughout WP, and since Sparrow also maintains this fact, I'm not quite understanding why you're so dead set against using any of the gov sources in the first place. Again WP allows them and they're used throughout WP. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Bad example. Kashmir is claimed by both India and Pakistan. I hope you do not intend to begin editing the India article. However both the U.S. and Puerto Rico claim that PR and the US are separate states. TFD (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Bad reply, India was used to demonstrate a point, any country could have been used to make the same point -- you can't assert an idea that is not expressed in any other way simply on the basis that no one mentioned the idea. That would indeed be synthesis to advance an idea not supported anywhere else. The fact that PR's are US citizens more than supports the idea that P.R. is part of the U.S. because they could not be citizens unless P.R. was indeed a part of the US. i.e.No new position has been advanced. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
So my passing judgment on federal sources is synthetic, but your claim that because Puerto Ricans are citizens means Puerto Rico is part of the Untied States is not? What kind of Bizarro logic is that? You got a source? Or is that too patently obvious to merit sourcing? If you think so, I have a bridge I'd like to interest you in... —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually you didn't synthesize anything to make the claim that gov sources are politically motivated -- you just flat out made the claim. In any event, P.R.'s couldn't be citizens if P.R. was not part of the U.S. Easy math. No synthesis. No new position advanced. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, read WP:PSTS, which is the controlling policy on sourcing, not the Primary sources article: "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Same deal here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly my point! The gov sources in question were not written by people involved with the acquisition of the territories, etc. If you feel one of them are, please cite the source, the material involved and the person/writer who was involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)C.J.S. and Am. Jur. both say that the territories and possessions are not part of the United States in all contexts. Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.) defines the U.S. as consisting of the states and D.C., with no mention of the territories or possessions. Even if the lede need not be sourced, the claims in the lede need to be repeated elsewhere in the article, where they then must be sourced. The distinction between primary and secondary sources is not applied at the document level—a source may be primary for some purposes and secondary for others. I argue that because of the lack of sourcing or evidence of where the claim or interpretation comes from, using Sparrow's assertion that the U.S. unequivocally includes the territories should be regarded as a primary source. Even if Sparrow is okay for that point, then who cares about the other primary sources? Just source to Sparrow and be done with it. But it's not that easy... —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to make a suggestion, let's leave the lead alone, as there was some form of consensus formed on DRN, and let's focus on getting references to verify it.
After this, let us start working on a terminology section where the differing interpretations of how the United States is defined. This can allow all the verified to reliable source POVs room in the article space. Perhaps that will relieve some tension that is building here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The modern era U.S. should be discussed for the U.S. country-article. But the discussion above is dominated by a lockbox mindset ending 1935. More century-old court cases superseded by statute and living populations, and citizenship mandated 1917, now superseded by mutual consent in 1952, because why?, Island people do not know what they are doing today? But THE COURT SAID, "separate but equal" schools and "separate and unequal" territories today, tomorrow, forever? Sparrow says territory west of the Mississippi was not a part of the Treaty of Paris federal republic, but it became so in the "legacy of the Northwest Territory" by "democratic empire". Mention "empire" so now history must stop at the death of Queen Victoria? No sources, no good. --- Since 1952 Puerto Rico is a part of the United States because Puerto Ricans said so in referendum, and six times over fifty years, last in 2012. Some refuse to admit modern islander competence to vote for belonging to the U.S. --- only 4% voted for independence. Lawson and Sloane say PR votes for economic advantage they would lose as states. They get to vote any way for what ever reason they want -- that’s why democracy is scary to dictatorships of the right and left.
No disputes on the “political union” of N. Marianas Commonwealth with the U.S., they chose something constitutionally “equivalent” to states rather than the Chinese Hong Kong/Tibet model. Japan made no offers, Pacific tuna is near fished out so tradition-culture independence is no-go, the sea levels are rising. Where are you going to go? Hawaii, as a U.S. citizen with right of travel, California. N. Marianas get to vote any way for whatever reason they want. --- The “legacy of the Northwest Territory” is based on populace acceptance by convention or referendum, not just granted U.S. citizenship. “Union” occurs when the populace accepts constitution, congress, federal courts, AND the territory achieves fundamental (never state-same in U.S. history) constitutional protections, self-governing republican government, citizenship, right of travel, territorial Member of Congress.
Reductio ad absurdum is simple-minded. The argument for “a part of the U.S.” hinges on Congress AND the populace since 1805 as Sparrow describes, a social contract like the three U.N. criteria for “self-determination” (not independence) of minority colonial peoples within a nation-state. 1. Fundamental human rights, 2. full citizenship with local autonomy, 3. participation in national councils. Lawson and Sloane show Puerto Rico has met all three in the modern era (lacking presidential electors does not disqualify PR, it has a territorial Member of Congress). L&S did ask in 2005 for a referendum with “independence” on the ballot, it was on the 2012 ballot and got four per-cent. Democracy disappoints dictators of the right and the left, Cuba protested the validity of the Puerto Rican referendum held without consent of Congress (!?). In a democracy of the modern era, islanders get to vote any way they want for whatever reason. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
ugh you guys. I'm out, I'm tired of seeing literally the same arguments happening before the DRN as after. Burn it down all you like, let me know when it's time to clean up the ashes. --Golbez (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
'New Positions' v 'Incidental observations'
There seems to be some confusion distinguishing synthesis / new positions from 'Incidental comments', which I think can best be addressed with a simple model:
Source 'A' says 'Apple Trees have been grown on Green Hill'.
Source 'B' says 'Pear trees have been grown on Green Hill'.
Incidental comment: 'Fruit trees have been grown on Green Hill.'
Synthesis/new position: 'Green Hill can not produce orange trees.
Incidental comments can be derived from primary, or any, source. If a secondary source can corroborate such comments, as is the case with Sparrow and the gov sources, all the better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
What is to be "United States" as a definition. The problem is not logic, it may be an anachronistic habit of mind. If a wp:pov editor is ideologically driven, logic and evidence is of no help, all opposing arguments are absurd, evidence need not be weighed, no counter SOURCE need be found. To the ideologue, each editor picks their own wp:madeup fantasyland, timeframe snapshot for 'America mainstreet' or 'Amerika gulag'. Do not confuse with sourced facts, democracy, time passing, too messy that, find a direct answer without nuance or ambiguity to meet ideological inevitability. A sourced position defining the U.S. federal republic by 1. fundamental constitutional protections, 2. full citizenship and autonomous republican government, and 3. territorial Member of Congress -- U.S. constitutional practice for two hundred years AND the three-element U.N. criteria for "self-determination" of minority colonial (1945) peoples in a nation-state --can be made absurd.
All it takes is to deny the legitimacy of republic-citizenship, using territorial examples from monarchies without representation, or empires without referendums, or indexes citing century-old references in a lexicographic methodology without reference to any peoples or events of the last half-century. It may be a lack of historical context which Sparrow hopes to redress in political science, or it may be willful ignorance. The argument for territories as “a part of the U.S.” hinges on Congress AND the populace. Territory west of the Mississippi was not a part of the Treaty of Paris federal republic, but it became so in the "legacy of the Northwest Territory" by "democratic empire". The territories became a part of the federal republic before statehood by territorial republican government, citizenship, Member of Congress. YES, that was denied unjustly to 1898 territories, but they were made constitutionally “equivalent” to incorporated states by 2010 regardless of race, just as other "legacy" territories before them. "Today, the U.S. includes territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean." ANSWER ad absurdum: citizenship of people does not make a territory part of a country, territories are not states, territories are not a part. (!?!?)
But the same editors say territories were incorporated before statehood in 20th century Arizona and New Mexico 1910, and Alaska and Hawaii 1960. Modern U.S. territories have more privileges than the previously incorporated territories. Without becoming states they are also a part of, included in the U.S. today, as cited, directly quoted and linked. Regardless of the context, sources or argument, TFD drums on about 1917 PR citizenship, reductio ad absurdum, ad nauseum AFTER I have stipulated PR is not a part of the U.S. until after 1950s congressional and territorial statutes and local referendum. Can this be in wp:good faith? Mention "empire" and he insists world history must stop at Queen Victoria’s reign 1901, or maybe the death of once-colonial-PI-insurrection-governor, William Howard Taft 1930, or Insular Cases 1901-1904. U.S.V.I. with elected governor and Member of Congress MUST be like B.V.I with royal governor and no MP, because republic territories MUST be like empire territories -- no source, no good. Nothing from the U.S., U.N. or island peoples since 1962 can be put forward without misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misstating. But it is always dismissed without counter-sources. This is not a problem of logic, but at best, an anachronistic mindset. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Two relatively recent law review articles saying Balzac is still good law, nothing to overturn them, therefore still relevant today. Judicial opinions do not have an expiration date, as you seem to be asserting. Most of your argument is incomprehensible. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Seconding the incomprehensible observation. Indeed, the entirety of Sparrow et al. as well as most of the sources proffered by TVH that directly examine the issue agree that the status of these territories is complex and unsettled. There are various arguments and suggestions put forward as to how things should be, but such opinions need to be considered separately from the analysis of the current status. older ≠ wiser15:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue was whether saying because Puerto Ricans are citizens that PR is part of the U.S. is a synthetic statement, which must be sourced or whether it is true by definition. Since the Supreme Court decided that the extension of citizenship did not incorporate territories (see Sparrow, p. 232), one would think it is a synthetic statement, unless of course William Taft and the other eight justices lacked reading comprehension skills. TFD (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Very well. Note, no sources can be quoted to reiterate Balzac within the last 50 years, the last time we relied on tertiary sources we got “reversed” when the case said “upheld”, “upheld” and “remanded”. And again islanders are not competent to determine their own future?, there is NOTHING the Puerto Rican people can do to escape the wiki-inevitability of their independence after fifty years’ unwavering 96% votes to be a part of the U.S. in 80% turnouts – is the 4% the “Party of 2012”, who ARE they, and do they meet wp:importance?
There is no source I use to say the status of these territories is “complex and unsettled” requiring wiki-editor ideological deconstruction and synthesis. A citizen with English as a second language (ESL) can understand the declarative sentence, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia … the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” Some may believe things should be territorial independence, but that is not what U.S.G. or the populations believe the status to be, U.S. territories are “included” in the U.S.
Sparrow, first sentence after the forward, “The United States is not a nation of states and never has been. Even at the founding … And at present, the U.S. includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia, and, of course, the fifty states. … The political development of the continental territories largely followed the legacy of the Northwest Ordinance, passed under the Articles of Confederation.
Are we really going to debate whether The Court of Plessy v. Ferguson, “William Taft and the other eight justices” lacked reading comprehension skills? They lacked the ability to see the effects of the disembodied law on the people, now U.S. citizens, so they were overturned in Brown v. Board. Now blacks and islanders have full citizenship, and you insist on attaining no independent judgment apart from that Court, imposing your willfulness on the U.S. country-article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no source I use to say the status of these territories is “complex and unsettled” BS. Anyone making a fair and objective reading of the sources can easily see what the sources actually say. I urge editors to do so and not accept one editor's persistent misrepresentations. Unless I'm completely off-base, I don't see how anyone could review the material that directly addresses the issue of the current status of territories and conclude that the matter is settled or that it is anything other than complex. older ≠ wiser21:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No sources, no good. (Is o≠w' BS adolescent infatuation with scatology? right here on wikipedia talk pages in front of everyone? Grow up.) The only Bunk and Silliness here is "older"-not-wiser persisting in arrogant dismissals without sources that serve as wp:personal attacks without sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I call BS exactly what it is. And I challenge for other editors to draw any other conclusion from reviewing the sources that you yourself cite. older ≠ wiser11:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree, wholeheartedly. You aren't off-base in the least Bkonrad. And frankly, while I want badly to assume good faith, TVH's final paragraph above, itself lacking good faith, serves to demonstrate that he has an axe to grind. Misplaced Pages is not about righting great wrongs. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. I make a sourced reference with a direct quote. An editor with an-axe-to-grind misstates it. -- No source to contradict the scholar directly or his body of work. No source to contradict the substance of his words. Just this in a repeated cycle: I-quote-with-source, you-deny-unsourced, and you-personally attack. I let it go until it comes up again, I-quote-with-source...
The right-great-wrongs problem is for those who will not let go a one-hundred-year's-old injustice, and for today accept the judgment of the living islanders who have voiced their will to be a part of the U.S. -- now sustained for fifty years. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Note, no sources can be quoted to reiterate Balzac within the last 50 years I think you need to check your own reading comprehension skills. I quoted two sources above within the last 20 years that do just that. And in reviewing Westlaw I saw several more. Balzac is still good law, even if academics hate it. Deal with it. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No source, no good. A recent tertiary publication cataloguing 100-year-old case without updating its previous edition is not a reliable source in the face of government and scholarly sources since 1962. There was no quote.There was no source.
Your persistent referrals to "all sources" and "two recent articles" are NOT sources. Another reference to a tertiary super secret sauce source "Westlaw" which cannot be directly quoted even by you who misquote "upheld" as "overturned" when I found the published case - which you denied was published.
No source, no good. Legal references DO NOT say what law is still in force, as any law reference service will tell you. You were in the discussion the last time I used it when you questioned whether anyone but you had begun research on a subject we knew nothing about by using tertiary sources. I explained I had in a law library, with links and sources on how to use them. I will refind the link for you on request. I certainly have asked for your sources numerous times. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I provided unambiguous citations to every single source I've used in this entire discussion. With all due respect, if you don't have the wherewithal to read even the most basic legal references that even a dump of a law library in the most dismal backwater has on its most prominent shelves, I don't think you should be raising your voice on this issue anymore. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
context from Sparrow
Sparrow in Sparrow and Levinson, 2005, These were states as John Marshal saw, “in embryo”, under the tutelage of the U.S.G., “never regarded as mere possessions.” With the territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific eventual statehood did not obtain. The Insular Cases were the proximate divergence of the U.S. insular territories from the legacy of the Northwest Ordinance. “Behind the Insular Cases, though, was the matter of race … the McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft administrations, Congress and the American people were not inclined to accept these non-English-speaking, non-Protestant, and non-white inhabitants as citizens of states or states-to-be.” in the modern era, half of all self-identified Puerto Ricans in their three millions are now citizens of continental states, three are elected to Congress from NY, OH and ID. So much for Mr. Taft and "the matter of race".]
“The reality of the U.S. possessions has not been integrated into thinking about the American political system.” Rather, the consistent premise has been that the U.S. federal system is “constituted in its entirety by its component states”. James Bryce: “Every American citizen lives in a duality of which Europeans, always excepting the Swiss , and to some extent the Germans , have no experience… animated by two patriotisms and owns two allegiances.’ William Riker: “both kinds of governments rule over the same territory and the same people, each has the authority to make some decisions independent of the other.” Sparrow: “The U.S. is NOT the simple aggregate of the states, as the existence of the territories, public lands and federal district – -- makes clear.”
Later-arriving states had the advantage of joining an already “viable polity”, but the disadvantage of bargaining as unequals over annexation terms. Donald Meinig describes the U.S. as a democratic empire. “Democratic” because voters via congress set public policy of expansion, development and trade. “Empire” because jurisdiction extended over people who not did not have fundamental constitutional protections, full citizenship in republican self-government or a voice in territorial representation. “The fact of federalism combines democracy and empire.” As policy is determined by local elected politicians, “the U.S. is federal in process”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote, The issue was whether saying because Puerto Ricans are citizens that PR is part of the U.S. is a synthetic statement, which must be sourced or whether it is true by definition. Analytic statements do not need evidence. Synthetic statements need evidence, which is why you have just re-presented evidence that you have already provided countless times. For example if one wants to know if a bachelor is an unmarried man, one does not provide examples of bachelors who are unmarried. TFD (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Analytic statements do not need evidence. Synthetic statements need evidence, which is why you have just re-presented evidence. Nonsense. You cannot dismiss my sourced contribution as inadmissible BECAUSE I have a source. ! ? ! ? --- 1. Analytic statements require secondary authority, not ideological purity or editor-original research, 2. synthetic statements are not to be admitted at all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you look up the Analytic–synthetic distinction. I will explain it without lingo. The editor who began this discussion thread said that because Puerto Ricans are citizens, PR is part of the U.S. by definition, just as bachelors are by definition unmarried men. To say otherwise would not only be wrong, but self-contradictory. TFD (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Because Puerto Ricans are citizens. Acceptance of fundamental U.S. constitution in territorial organic act, supremacy of congress and federal courts, fifty-year participation in U.S. citizenship, electing autonomous territorial government and a Member of Congress CANNOT be fairly reduced to “citizenship” alone in the discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, while it may be true, as you claim, that granting citizenship to Puerto Ricans incorporated the territory into the US, it is not true by definition. Texas for example is part of the U.S., but not by definition, because it is possible to conceive of Texas as being separate from the U.S., as in fact it has been. On the other hand that the State of Texas is a state is true by definition. TFD (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
syllogism for “a part of”
Is a territory “a part of the U.S.”? Provide examples of previous territories “a part of the U.S.” in the 20th century.
Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii with fundamental rights, citizenship, republican self-government and Member of Congress, never "expressly incorporated".
See Sparrow et. al. in Sparrow and Levinson, as cited, quoted and linked above.
Is a territory “not-part” of the U.S.? Provide examples of previous territories “not-part” of the U.S. in the 20th century.
Alien peoples of foreign cultures without republican institutions or constitutional rule of law at the time of Balzac -- no fundamental rights, no citizenship, no republican self-government and no Member of Congress, never "expressly incorporated".
See Sparrow et. al. in Sparrow and Levinson, as cited, quoted and linked above.
Are modern era organized territories “a part of the U.S.”, viz., N. Marianas, Guam, Am. Samoa, U.S. Virgin Is. and Puerto Rico?
Compare them with previous territories “a part of the U.S.” AND previous territories “not-part” of the U.S.
Modern era organized territories have all five characteristics of 20th century territories “a part of the U.S.”
See Lawson and Sloane as cited, quoted and linked above. AND
Modern era organized territories share none of the characteristics of territories “not-part” of the U.S.
See Lawson and Sloane as cited, quoted and linked above.
THEREFORE, modern U.S. territories are a part of the U.S.
See Congressional statutes interpreted by State Department, Homeland Security, Government Accountability Office, and Census as cited, quoted and linked above.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This is the Talk page. We talk at Talk, every phrase is not to be sourced and defended as for a doctoral dissertation. --But now they are added, per your request. -- An editor asked for help. TFD wondered how to think about territories, For example if one wants to know if a bachelor is an unmarried man, one does not provide examples of bachelors who are unmarried. He missed the mark, I helped out.
The sources say Today, the United States includes the 50 states, DC and the five organized territories. That is all that is needed, there is no counter by government or scholarly source to say, "Modern era U.S. territories are NOT a part of the U.S." I understand some would like to leverage off of century-old court cases as primary documents by unreliable tertiary digests. They would deny the full-citizenship, elected government, and free elections in modern era U.S. territories -- but still no secondary sources for that -- apart from editor-synthesis of primary sources and tertiary digests for non-citizens of 1910 that do not apply to citizens of 2010 as a part of the U.S.. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The title on the cover of the magazine says, "Law Review"? The article is in the Table of Contents? The article is found inside printed in its entirety? It is well sourced in footnotes and peer-reviewed in an accredited law school?
I hope "law review" would not be the same as the tertiary digest summarizing a case as "reversed", which on inspection reads, "i. upheld, ii. upheld and iii. remanded". We suffered that during the conflict resolution discussion. Those embarrass us.
Instead, see K. Vignarajah in University of Chicago Law Review, The political roots of judicial legitimacy which Mendaliv supplied us. Good strong historical context to show territories are not states in the matter of revenues as the Territories Clause power has been interpreted by Courts and practiced in Congress and executive (interaction of the three is K.V.s thesis on legitimacy over time). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
And we're back to the start
At this point the narrowness of the supporting sources has been extensively noted, along with note of the complexity of the situation. Furthermore, we have recent sources saying that the Insular Cases are still applicable law. Meanwhile, the argument that the territories are part of the country is becoming increasingly focused on the inhabitants being citizens, with a jump then being made to the incorporation of the territories, including the constant citation of referendums in Puerto Rico as evidence and the demand that this article be written based on these results. This seems to leave us at the starting point; although many people would want the territories to be incorporated, both in the academic sphere and in those territories, the country has yet to do so. CMD (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The country is the congress, the representatives of the living people, including territorial Members of Congress. Unlike Balzac and Downes from the court which made second-class citizens of blacks and islanders -- in the modern era, Congress made blacks and islanders equal citizens. Although TFD asserts international law recognizes only common law citizenship by kingdom, not by naturalization nor statute which can be withdrawn at will in the U.K. Parliament. But it cannot in the U.S., it has a different constitutional practice which binds lawmakers in a way unimaginable to most Europeans outside the Swiss and Germans (James Bryce).
This is not the start: 1. We have an unbroken pattern of six months, tertiary references without secondary or primary, about the Insular Cases on alien peoples status, which never applied to citizens (Alaska, Rassmussen Insular Case), and now does not apply to islanders born on territories with blood of the soil. 2. We see clear formulation of the ‘exclude territories’ must uphold the Insular Cases to dismiss the voiced will of the islander people alive today and ignore the modern era Congress expanding privileges for the last fifty years. 3. We have constitutional status of territories as “equivalent” to incorporated states both in government and scholarly secondary sources, no counter-sources to date. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree broadly, though I still prefer a lede phrasing that leaves open the possibility given the complexity of the situation and the sources indicating ambiguity. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The sources seem to imply that as time went on they became treated in many ways as if they were incorporated, even though they have not been. That complexity is much better handled in the text at some point however, possibly in the Political Divisions section. CMD (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, of course, we shouldn't attempt to cover this in any detail in the lede. My point is we should prefer lede wording that doesn't foreclose the possibility that the territories and possessions are part of the US. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. This kind of fairmindedness and evenhandedness is why I value Mendaliv and Golbez contributions in spite of all else we do continue to disagree on. Now CMD seems to have a reasonable streak. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's another recent source (more recent than Sparrow), discussing the Insular Cases in greater detail, noting they're still valid today, plus a pretty important paragraph.
By a 5-4 vote, a fractured Supreme Court rejected Downes's view in a decision that produced five separate writings and no clear majority opinion. On its surface, Downes held only that the heavier duties imposed upon Puerto Rican imports were valid, leaving US territories outside the Constitution's Uniformity Clause. But the basis of the ruling was crucial, for the Court reconceived of Puerto Rico not as foreign or domestic, but rather as "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States." Or as Justice Edward White famously put it, Puerto Rico was "foreign to the United States in a domestic sense." In effect, the Court endorsed Congress's authority to govern Puerto Rico as a satellite colony, formally validating the territory's hybrid status somewhere between foreign nation and domestic state.
TVH, when you refer to what I have written, could you please ensure that you reflect it accurately. I did not say, "TFD asserts international law recognizes only common law citizenship by kingdom, not by naturalization nor statute which can be withdrawn at will in the U.K. Parliament." I merely observed that international law recognizes nationality, while citizenship is part of domestic law. Also your continued references to the racist and "apartheid" nature of the insular cases is trying. It would be racist for the U.S. to dismiss the right of self-determination of its insular nations and unilaterally incorporate them into the state. TFD (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Seconded. TVH has been misrepresenting my own positions, sources, and motivations quite egregiously. The three law review articles I've cited are not tertiary sources. TVH's single district court case is useless as a source, and my possible substitution of "abrogated" for "overruled" or vice versa, which was based on my own mistaken misreading of a citator signal, not any of the tertiary sources I've cited since I joined this discussion. And TVH's attempt to apply some segregationist guilt-by-association logic (essentially Reductio ad Hitlerum) to valid sources (and if you read the law review articles I've cited, at least one, if not two of them try to argue the abrogation of the Insular Cases). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well look at this: "Even though, to the best of our knowledge and research, no current scholar, from any methodological perspective, defends The Insular Cases, they remain good law . . . ." Gary Lawson & Robert D. Sloane, The Constitutionality of Decolonization by Associated Statehood: Puerto Rico's Legal Status Reconsidered, 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1123, 1146 (2009). All Lawson and Sloane say is that the current status of PR is probably unconstitutional and in violation of international law. Even assuming their contention is correct (and it may be), that does not change PR's status. Throw in Sparrow and you've got support for a statement that "PR's status is legally complex." Boom roasted. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
What we seem to have is the situation where the territories' status is quite well legally defined; an unincorporated territory with only the US laws that congress has extended to it (which are quite a few), but that this legal definition may not be completely, well, legal. Given that' it may be best to take the lead back to the status quo ante, and take note of the situation in the main article, and link this to expansion on a more focused article, say Territories of the United States. CMD (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
By secondary source Vignarajah, Insular Cases only reiterate the historical case described by Sparrow. The territories held by the U.S. are not states, Congress has and may choose varying degrees of local autonomy, less-than-a-state, not statehood on a deadline. With local population acceptance of constitution, congress and federal courts, and "the country" i.e. congress granting fundamental constitutional protections, full citizenship, local autonomy in republican self-government, and Member of Congress, the "legacy of the Northwest Territory" takes hold, and the U.S.G. meets its obligation to a colonial minority population in a nation-state per U.N. resolution: basic human rights, full citizenship, local autonomy and participation in national councils (Lawson and Sloane).
Lawson and Sloane in Boston College Law Review tells us the modern era territories have, "regardless of the theoretical" implications of the Insular Cases, "local autonomy" and a constitutional status “equivalent” to incorporated states.
Reisman-McDougal-Sloane reference, Most in the U.N. see U.S.-PR commonwealth as “acceptable”, or “benign” ,“adequate under contemporary law”. Only a “small minority as unlawful per se.”
Now, Vignarajah in the U. of Chicago Law Review, In the Insular Cases, the court found that “Puerto Rico was not a state but rather a territory held by the United States”, likewise Hawaii and Philippines.
In Vignarajah, "the literature" includes both Torruella, and Sparrow using the very articles previously cited. Expanding the federal republic beyond 1783 Treaty of Paris boundaries, the U.S. expanded from the Mississippi River to the west coast until "today the U.S. includes territories in the Caribbean and Pacific." (Sparrow). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
And? That it has rights equivalent to an incorporated state doesn't make it incorporated, that it's legal (or illegal) doesn't make it incorporated. Sparrow, as noted, includes the territories in the United States by discussing the United States as an Empire, much like Kenya was in Britain, when Britain was an Empire. None of this shows incorporation, which we have legal sources noting hasn't happened. CMD (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The American "empire" outside the federal republic at 1805 and after, is the territory not a part of the U.S. at the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which is incorporated as you have conceded for 20th century Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii. Kenya was not given representation in Parliament, it was not admitted to the U.K. “on an equal footing” with Scotland, England and Wales “when Britain was an empire", as were Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii in the American “democratic empire” (Sparrow). The parallel does not hold. And, I have not finished reading Vignarajah in the U. of Chicago Law Review, which discusses the Insular Cases in historical context, which I value greatly, and it is a source -- there is no source for U.S. Arizona Territory = British Kenya colony, is there? I'm going to finish reading Vignarajah, a source, versus more madeup. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll address your points one-by-one:
Here are the two Lawson and Sloane quotes you use, in context:
In practice, whatever the theoretical scope of congressional power over Puerto Rico under the Territories Clause and the Insular Cases doctrine, the United States has in fact vested Puerto Ricans with (or recognized judicially) virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states. The consistent trend since 1952, even if only as a matter of policy, has been to expand this category. The Supreme Court has held, for example, that due process and equal protection apply to Puerto Ricans, although it has--probably deliberately--declined to specify whether these constitutional principles apply by virtue of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.
Gary Lawson & Robert D. Sloane, The Constitutionality of Decolonization by Associated Statehood: Puerto Rico's Legal Status Reconsidered, 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1123, 1162 (2009).
Professor Helfeld speculates, plausibly, "that the Court wished to avoid the implications of grounding its decision on either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments" because "f it had relied on the former, it might have given the impression that Puerto Rico continues to be a territory," whereas, had it relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, "that could have been interpreted as the equivalent of defining Puerto Rico as a state of the union."
Id. at 1162 n.213. In sum, what this means is that Puerto Ricans are equivalent to citizens of the several states, not that Puerto Rico is equivalent to the several states.
I'm not sure what reference you're talking about re: Reisman, McDougal and Sloane. Just searching by your quotations, I could not find it on Westlaw. Please provide a reference to the journal, volume and page number or range.
Your quotation comes from a paragraph having to do with Dooley:
The two final installments decided the following term did little to dislodge this overall result. In Dooley v United States, the Court took up the issue of the constitutionality of the Foraker Act itself. The Act fixed duties on imports into Puerto Rico, and was challenged as a violation of Article I, § 9 of the Constitution, which states that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." The case again hinged on whether Puerto Rico was a domestic state, foreign sovereign, or something in between. Finding that Puerto Rico was not a state but rather a territory held by the United States, the Court upheld the Act's constitutionality.
Vignarajah at 795-96 (footnotes omitted). The specific language you quoted merely means that Puerto Rico is not a state but a territory.
Merely because source A cites source B for point X, and source B also contains point Y, does not mean that source A endorses point Y. Furthermore, the point in Sparrow that you cite just supports the concept that the current practical status of Puerto Rico is complex.
So basically, there's no real counter to the point that the Insular Cases are still good law, and that the Insular Cases establish that Puerto Rico is, as Justice White put it, "foreign to the United States in a domestic sense." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 341 (1901) (White, J. concurring). I don't personally consider that to be a particularly just position for Puerto Rico, but that doesn't change either the political or practical realities of Puerto Rico's status. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the fair hearing, and taking my understanding at face value. Thank you. You are correct, I am persuaded that Insular Cases are good law in permitting statute and administration of U.S.G. to govern the modern era U.S. territories UNLIKE a state in the matter of imports and taxation – I would add from Sparrow, as it has for all previously “incorporated” territories such as AZ, NM, AK and HI.
“Foreign to the United States in a domestic sense” is the same 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica usage of U.S. as 50 states only, without DC or territories of any description, still gotta see what the take of Vignarajah is in the U. of Chicago Law Review. Since Downes, Puerto Ricans have learned English, practiced republican three-branch government, accepted citizenship in 1952, and elected a Member of Congress for fifty years.
U.S. population in Puerto Rico are not a state, but islanders enjoy full citizenship which is not anticipated anywhere in Downes, is it? unless Congress exercises its political function TOGETHER with island populations beginning 1952? I am reading Vignarahah as fast as I can…GREAT source, thank you. Ah, ‘the political or practical realities” of constitutional status of the modern era U.S. territories. Is the Government Accountability Office report on Insular Territories 1995 a reliable (admissible) source? Are Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review? You are correct, neither contradicts the premise that U.S. territories are not states, but Downes does not deny Congress the ability to extend rights and privileges of previous territories? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The case TheVirginiaHistorian is referring to is Examining Board v. Flores de Otero 1976. As written in Human Rights and Non-Discrimination in the 'War on Terror' pp. 150-151, "...although this question has not yet been finally settled by the US courts, there is a strong case that not only international human rights law but also fundamental constitutional rights, including the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendements, are applicable in military commission trials--even if the trials are held at Guantanamo....In its previous case law, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the government may not act inconsistently with the Constitution, whether within US territory or abroad. It has also repeatedly held that fundamental consitutional rights extend to territory where the United States has governing authority--it is the exercise of jurisdiction and control, rather than nominal sovereignty, that obligates the United States to recognise fundamental rights.
The U.S. constitution does not bestow rights on citizens but prevents the government from depriving people of rights, whether citizens, nationals or aliens, regardless of where in the world they happen to be.
I think you missed the mark. No modern era organized U.S. territory is ruled by a military governor (Sparrow Phase I), nor an appointed governor (Sparrow Phase II). All have elected governors (Sparrow Phase III) in preparation for statehood, including fundamental constitutional protections, full citizenship in self-autonomous republican government, and Member of Congress. Wasn't the Reisman, McDougal and Sloane article in University of Missouri Law Review? I'll try to find it for you tomorrow morning. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
From the perspective of the U.S. Census Bureau, past and present
Perhaps another way to determine the status of territories in terms of 'include' v 'exclude' is to approach the matter from the perspective of the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau has for some time regarded the (former) territories much in the same way they do the states, and when accessing the population of the country they also include that of the territories and have been for some time.
I'd generally respond to this with the position I've been advocating since the start: the phrase "United States" is ambiguous, depending on context, as to whether the territories are implied by that phrase. 77 Am. Jur. 2d United States § 1 and 91 C.J.S. United States § 1. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That allowance for "United States" is ambiguous, depending on context, may be all that can be fairly asked for, given this page's history on the subject -- as long as 1. the possibility of variable levels of autonomy is admitted, 2. including the U.S.G. representations for itself on the matter and 3. as qualified by other reliable sources. ---
U.S.G. makes a comprehensive claim including all five organized territories. But Puerto Rico's history alone is complicated by federal courts ruling it a part of the U.S. without express language using "incorporated" in statute -- which Justice White recommended to Congress -- and another federal court ruled a territory "incorporated" without express statutory language before in Rassmussen for Alaska(!) -- with citizens and a tax district alone! The primary sources are way to complex for summary encyclopedic language without secondary sources.
Let me finish Vignarajah in the U. of Chicago Law Review, way too complicated in the weeds without him or other secondary sources. Northern Marianas has "political union" since 1985, but Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Is. are under international investigation ... rather than settling all on a Misplaced Pages page, --- Can we let the page admit the various iterations of autonomy from several reliable sources? It just doesn't seem right to disqualify U.S.G. when only "a small minority" of the U.N. General Assembly believe the U.S. Puerto Rican Commonwealth is unlawful. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
What does the possibility of varying levels of autonomy have to do with anything? It's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as are sources about Alaska unless they relate themselves to the situation being discussed. As for the USG position, here's the state department page listing the territories as dependencies. CMD (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
varying levels of autonomy refers to the U.S. constitutional practice of giving territories less right-privilege than states until their admission on an equal footing as states, AZ, NM, AK, HI in the 20th century, and now, the five organized territories.
Alaska is "totally irrelevant", Alaska, like the modern five territories, was not in the federal republic originally, it was not "expressly" made incorporated by statute. But in Rassmussen the Court said Alaska WAS incorporated. Congress had made a) citizens and b) tax district there. So. Modern era territories like Alaska with a) citizens and b) tax district, are incorporated without "express" incorporation, just like the Court said in Rassmussen for Alaska Territory.
As for the U.S.G. position, the tertiary list shows dependencies as a part of the U.S., just not states. We have secondary government sources that the U.S. INCLUDES organized territories -- from 1. State Department, 2. GAO, 3. Homeland Security and 4. Census Department. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
You've not shown what the US constitutional practice of giving territories less privileges than states and the various rights Alaska had when it was incorporated have to do with whether the territories in question are incorporated or not, that entire premise relies on your own OR and synthesis. As has been pointed out many times, the secondary government sources included them for the purposes of the lists involved, which they had to clarify in the beginning (there's never any need to clarify whether the 50 states and DC are in the US). Mendaliv's sources on the other hand explicitly note the territories are unincorporated. CMD (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The premise is that Wikpedia editors should use a) secondary government and scholarly sources supported by primary documents, --- rather than b) tertiary editor synthesis in lists and digests with contradicting primary sources. Confusion at the CMD 8:32 post. Tertiary sources make lists of “U.S. government” on .gov webpages include both states and territories, with no statement, “territories are not a part of the U.S.” Twelve other .gov-related usages here at Talk (will repost on request), show territories included with states and DC, without separation between them. Secondary government sources are preferred, they write in complete sentences within interpretive narratives, “the U.S. includes territories.”
CMD is correct, U.S.G. secondary sources have clarified that “Today, the U.S. includes” the five organized territories. Correct again, as U.S.G. says the U.S. includes a., b., and c., there is never any need to clarify a. and b., --- AND there is no justification to exclude c., the territories, because clarification to include them has been made in secondary Government (State, GAO, Homeland, Census) and scholarly (Lawson and Sloan, Juan R. Torruella, Levinson and Sparrow) -- sources, as cited, directly quoted, linked and archived above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Pamphlets issued by the USG are not secondary sources. Can you please explain why a reasonable person would prefer a statement in a pamphlet for immigrants to official statements by the USG or legal articles and textbooks on public international law? Instead of searching for sources to support your views, you should identify the best sources and run with what they say. TFD (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
In 1854 the U.S. only had incorporated territories. Since the insular cases determined Alaska was incorporated, one would expect that a 1915 source would refer to it as part of the U.S. It is interesting that the 1905 source refers to Alaska as a "dependent territory", i.e., owned by but not part of the U.S. However that was the same year as the Rasmussen case that determined Alaska was part of the U.S. This whole approach is however wrong - searching for obscure, ancient references that support a specific view. TVH, your comments on the U.N. are wrong. While the USG claims that Puerto Rico is a separate state in "free association" with the U.S., Cuba and 30 other states claim that it remains under U.S. control and should therefore be returned to the list of non-self governing territories. Note that the USVI, American Samoa and Guam remain on the list, having been placed there by the USG. TFD (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I have asked you to help me get more sourcedcounter-U.S.G. takes on the U.S. territories to balance the article, in footnotes if need be, but without blocking sourced U.S.G. claims.
Searching for obscure, ancient references that support a specific view. That would be your a) Insular Cases used NOT relative to their federal taxing discretion--still good law, but misapplied to modern local republican government as 1910 alien peoples unacquainted with U.S. law and custom, b) referencing undated international claims made a half-century ago, without sources,
Comments on U.N. are wrong, may be so, but I sourced it to a scholar in a reliable source. c) You claim without a source, 15% of U.N. General Assembly (30/193) want to add more U.S. territories to the non-self governing list. That merits adding to our territory counter-claims of Haiti, Cuba, et al. But without sources the 15% does not rise to the level of wp:importance, because they failed again this session to get their motion on the agenda for a vote in the U.N. General Assembly. Lets get some additional sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Since the position of both the U.S. and its opponents is that the territories are not part of the U.S., there is no reason to add their views for balance. No idea why you say "without a source" - you brought up the UN resolution without a source, I assume you are familiar with it. The insular cases are hardly obscure compared for example with an 1854 geography book, and are valid law. Most importantly, I am using contemporary legal articles that refer to the ancient cases. Note also that the consistitution is even older yet is still good law today, and we are allowed to use current legal textbooks that interpret it. TFD (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is a link to the draft resolution that was passed by the Special Committee on Decolonization. Upon reading it again, I see that the number "30" refers to the petitioners, but the proposal had the support of the Non-Aligned Movement, which represents 120 states. Notice the wording in the report: "the United States considered the island to have decided freely and democratically to enter into free association with it...." It does not say that the position of the U.S. is that it has incorporated PR into the republic. TFD (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The committee report did not make it to the U.N. General Assembly agenda for a vote again this year. However, it should be folded into the Counter-U.S.G. note sources just as soon as we have a scholarly source. The Cuban delegate did say there should be a review of status, but the petitioners should find a mutual agreement between PR and U.S. under international law. Then the November 2012 referendum followed with only 4% for independence.
The U.N. Committee report is a primary document. What does it mean? Apart from editor-opinion, to date, we only have Reisman-McDougal-Sloane to say, Most in the U.N., elites and majority, see U.S.-PR commonwealth as “acceptable”, or “benign”, “adequate under contemporary law”. Only a “small minority as unlawful per se.”, according to the secondary source at hand. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the nature of the dispute. The committee is not in dispute about whether or not the territories are part of the US because the USG claims that they are not part of the US. The dispute is about whether the US respects their right to self-determination which is the stated position of the USG. If anything, the Cuban position is closer to your reasoning, that the USG has illegally incorporated the territories. TFD (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The USG claims that are not part of the US. no source, only wp:madeup, versus sources that say "include". This last post is puzzling. You suggested the Lawson and Sloane law review article. The TFDs scholars demonstrate PR is a part of the U.S. by U.N. Res. 567 tests for self-determination of a colonial minority population in a nation-state (not independence, self-determination -- the explicit U.N. goal at its creation for colonial peoples world-wide). FIRST, “PR manifestly … enjoys virtually complete autonomy over its local affairs (p.1160). SECOND, 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. The consistent trend since 1952 … has been to expand this category.” (p.1162) --- The U.S.G. says the U.S. includes modern territories, and scholars say both they are included in the federal republic (Sparrow) and they have achieved self-determination by U.N. standards (Lawson and Sloane).
The 96% vs 4% has no impact whatsoever, because Cuba does not say so? I stand with the Puerto Ricans, regardless what editors may believe the "inevitable" may be. While there are yet nation-states, Puerto Ricans choose the U.S., not other popular vacation spots, spending U.S. dollars in Cuba or Guatemala. The Puerto Rican autonomous legislature made a
Joint Resoluton to U.S. Congress 11 December 2012 to be admitted as a state. TFD has already proclaimed his wish for PR to be a state or independent. Let's not start a list of failed U.N. counter-USG resolutions which are never voted on in the U.N. General Assembly. We could not the PR Joint Resolution for statehood, however. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Merely because some US Government publication says something doesn't mean we blindly accept it. What matters is what scholars say. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Merely because some publications say the American Union is illegal, WP does not blindly dismiss what U.S.G. secondary sources from State, GAO and Homeland say --- because --- they interpret Congressional statutes. --- we do not have to rely on original editor synthesis. We do not rely only on U.S.G. secondary sources, we also use what scholars say, a) Today, the U.S. "includes" organized Pacific and Caribbean territories. b) modern U.S. territories have a constitutional status "equivalent" to states, and c) their populations have freely expressed their will to have paths to full U.S. citizenship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Whether the U.S. relationship with its territories is irrelevant to whether or not they are part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting...
What do we think of this line? "The United States is . . . entirely separate and distinct from the District of Columbia." 91 C.J.S. United States § 2 (citing Randolph v. District of Columbia, 156 A.2d 686, 688 (D.C. 1959)). This isn't a highly cited case, but the point is that even in some contexts, for very real legal purposes (in this case, double jeopardy) the United States does not even include D.C. But then again... "The boundaries of the United States conform to the external boundaries of the several states, including all areas subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government wherever located, such as overseas territories." 91 C.J.S. United States § 4 (citing State v. Bob Manashian Painting, 782 N.E.2d 701, 705 (Mun. Ct. 2002)).
I'm reminded of an unrelated case that I've had to read a lot lately, Frazier v. Cupp. In 1964, Martin Rene Frazier was convicted of the murder of Russell Anton Marleau, in part on the strength of evidence police uncovered when they searched a duffel bag in the possession of Frazier's cousin Jerry Lee Rawls. When he was arrested, the police asked Rawls for the clothing he had worn on the day of the murder, and led police to the duffel bag, which was in his bedroom at his mother's house. Both he and his mother consented to the police search of the duffel bag, which did contain some of Rawls' clothing, but also contained Frazier's clothing, though possibly in a separate part of the bag. Frazier argued that Rawls' authority to consent to a search of the bag did not extend to that separate compartment. Writing for a unanimous court, Thurgood Marshall refused to "engage in such metaphysical subtleties in judging the efficacy of Rawls' consent." 394 U.S. 731, 740 (1969). In the spirit of this, I humbly suggest that we are getting into metaphysical subtleties of our own. It's flat out not possible to craft a single, concise sentence that adequately and accessibly expresses the relationship of the territories to the United States, which makes a lot of our above discussion (admittedly, even or perhaps especially mine) rather academic.
So where do we go from here? Some of us argue that the territories are not part of the country, some of us argue that they are, and I think all are generally in agreement that addressing any ambiguity in the lede is not feasible. So what do we do? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should define the U.S. as it is normally defined and mention that the term is sometimes used in a broader sense, which is what Am Ju says. In Randolph v. D.C., the term U.S. is used in a very narrow sense to mean the U.S. government. What the court said about DC is equally true of any state (or territory). Both the federal and state governments may prosecute persons on the same facts, while each government may only prosecute once. Curiously, the cases cited by Am Ju referred to all three definitions, but Am Ju only mentions two. Some illuminati conspiracy theorists claim DC is outside the US and would probably seize on this case.
I do not think that a municipal court decision is a good source. The case cites Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt for the statement, just as Am Ju does. It is a clear error because it is interpreting the Citizenship Clause which of course does not apply to territories. If it were true then American Samoans would be citizens.
Of course we should not use individual court cases alone, they are primary sources, they should only used with care to illustrate secondary sources. Does the tertiary source show the Citizenship clause applied because that is the court's understanding of the constitution, citing superior court precedent? TFD is uncertain as to any authority which might be derived from a reading a tertiary source.
But TFD unsourced, says which of course does not apply to territories. TFD insists on a parallel universe, taking onto himself what the Supreme Court says cannot be done, as citizenship is "irrevocable". Naturalized American Samoans returning (one-year residence in Guam or Hawaii) are full U.S. citizens. Their children born on Samoa are full citizens by blood. In-migrating U.S. citizens in permanent residence on Samoa do not loose their status; their children are citizens. More wp:madeup unsourced TFD. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, if the territories were part of the U.S., there would be no need for Congress to extend citizenship to them because the Citizenship Clause would apply. If American Samoa were part of the U.S., evey person born there would be citizens at birth, just as they are in any state and D.C. While it is true that children of American citizens born in American Samoa are American citizens, that is also true of children born to American parents in Canada and Mexico, but does not incorporate those countries into the U.S. TFD (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Missed the mark again. If the territories were STATES, there would be no need to extend citizenship to them. Congress has extended variable status to populations in incorporated territories. The 20th century saw various citizen, national, domestic alien, resident alien status in Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii, --- encompassing in-migrant, aboriginal, Mexican, Russian, Spanish, German and Dutch populations. That the American Samoa population has more rights and privileges than previously "incorporated territories" does not make American Samoa "unincorporated". It is another proof the modern U.S. territories are included, as the U.S.G. secondary and scholarly sources say they are, as cited, quoted and linked, as "a part of the U.S." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Contrasting -- delayed -- extension of citizenship is well documented in Julian Go's article in Levinson and Sparrow, as you well know by now, as cited, quoted and linked on these talk pages. Do you have any sources to say Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii are "incorporated" into a federal republic of living persons by 1854 -- before there are territorial names chosen or boundaries enacted, 5,000 U.S. citizens resident, or territorial Member of Congress?
Where did you get that remarkable factoid, All present U.S. is incorporated by 1854? You have assured me before that this American history of yours is not wp:madeup. I am prepared to believe you for the sake of discussion. Where is it to be found? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not know you were referring to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 1848, which incorporated conquered Mexican territory into the U.S. and predated the creations of the New Mexico and Arizona territories, and of course the citizenship clause. Of course after a territory is incorporated, there is no need to extend citizenship, because incorporation bestows citizenship on the inhabitants, at least those born after incorporation. The "factoid" is drawn from the insular cases that determined that only those territories obtained from Spain in 1898 were unincorporated. If you have any examples of unincorporated territories acquired before that time, then please provide them. Again, If American Samoa were part of the U.S., evey person born there would be citizens at birth, just as they are in any state and D.C. TFD (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Every person born in U.S. territories of MP, GM, PR and VI are citizens at birth, so all four are incorporated? Then agreed those four are a part of the U.S., and we are left with the ambiguous status of Samoa, the "last overseas territory" according to the U.S. State Department. Let’s plunge forward without your giving me the courtesy of a reply, assuming good faith.
At Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,
ARTICLE IX. The Mexicans who, citizens of the Mexican Republic, … shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution ...”
So here at this treaty which you agree should be governing in our discussion, ‘incorporation’ is citizenship of persons, not express statute organizing territory. Prior to the establishment of the New Mexico territory with an at-large territorial Member of Congress in 1850, and the establishment of Arizona in 1863, resident Spanish-speaking aliens are “incorporated” by the promise of eventual “enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the U.S.” as “judged of by the Congress”.
Are not territories in the modern era incorporated by actual“enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the U.S.” by Congress for fifty years, i.e., MP, GM, PR, and VI? On what grounds do you accept Mexican citizen ‘incorporation’ five years before the fact in AZ and NM territories, but you would deny islander ‘incorporation’ fifty years after the fact of their full U.S. citizenship, incorporated into the Union of the United States? On what grounds? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Territories become absorbed into the U.S. when Congress incorporates them. Before they are absorbed, Congress may enact any laws whatsoever regarding territories, except as prohibited by the U.S. constitution. All your facts may be reasons that Congress should incorporate the territories, or alternatively that Congress has put them on the same level as states. But is not the same thing. And here is the difference - the constitution does not extend in its entirety, Congress reserves the power to dispose of the territories, foreign nations do not recognize the territories as part of the U.S. and the indigenous populations retain their indigenous nationality and right to self-determination. The U.S. is aware of its international responsibilities to citizens of its possessions and continues to report on those that remain on the list of non-self governing territories. TFD (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Economy
The US median family net worth is very different from what most people think. Here is some information for the article:
No, the article has a link to all its sources. Read it carefully. The source comes from Credit Suisse. In fact, if you click it, you will find this link:
Just because a professor allegedly authors the content does not mean that the blog is a reliable source. Is this content published elsewhere in a reliable source, such as a peer reviewed journal, or editorially reviewed publication?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Have you rally read the source? This is incredible! Wiki is a pice of shit because of Nationalism! People who want to believe in their own propaganda and not on reality. Credit Suisse in the source, one of the most accredited finacial institutions in the world! the source is used by different papers, but the source is THERE! It goes against all the propaganda that you are swallowing up everyday, OK then, be happy, but this type of attitude damages the credibility of Wiki a lot! Here you have anotehr article using the same source of which you have a link above:
Goodbye, I am serious person tired of dealing with THIS TYPES OF wikepedians.
Edit conflict, issue with "45000" figure?
Last night I tried to update the statistics in the Economy section, and actually spent several days trying to put the edit together. Well, I made a mistake by duplicating healthcare information in that section when there was already a "Health" section. I just tried to fix that, but I got an edit conflict with this entire revert of my edit from last night which has the summary, "Please take massive alterations to Talk Page first; Already have Health/Econ sections;some good changes but some contested propaganda lines (ie "45000")"
Could I ask that we please remove just the contested portions instead of undoing an update of several 5-10 year old statistics? I can't find any "45000" in the text I added, so I'm not sure what this is about. EllenCT (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Several points: The Econ section already talks about the ongoing economic mess, so instead of totally changing the "Personal Income" section, why don't you integrate what new material and metrics like employment you have into that paragraph? The Health section already mentioned US spending as a percentage of GDP, so I'm not sure any further commentary on that is necessary. I cited "45"k from memory because that PNHP talking point has been around a long time, and it was initially trumpeted as "45,000" deaths per year due to lack of insurance. Since then it's been updated to "48"k using the same heavily criticized methodology. Frankly that study is garbage. We just got rid of it last year. If you insist on putting it back, the page would have to allow counterpoints, including pointing out that the "Harvard" study's lead authors are co-founders of the pro single payer PNHP lobbying group, they didn't look at a single cause of death, failed to confirm whether those uninsured at a snapshot were still uninsured at time of death years later, didn't adequately consider alternative explanations, etc., blowing up part of an article that's already considered way too long by wikipedia standards. Back to income, you shoved the actual income portion of what was the "personal income" section from the top to near the bottom of the section. You also seem to have deleted the part pointing out that the US has a progressive income tax, and that the top 10% pay most of the taxes. Heck, the old version already read like an almost entirely one sided leftist propaganda screed, and, on balance, your changes made it even more so. Remember, this is supposed to be a generic encyclopedia country article, not a platform for heavily detailed, partisan disputes on the hot issues of the day. VictorD7 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Total effective tax rate for US federal, state and local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate, etc.) by income level in 2011.
I put an intro about the jobless recovery with unemployment and broad unemployment numbers (which were not included in the version before I started editing the article, and are not considered a liberal talking point; just the opposite) at the beginning because it segued from the previous paragraph in the enclosing section, and merged the remaining paragraphs to match the order in the heading. The income statistics follow at the beginning of the second paragraph in the section. You object to a statistical review of excess deaths, even though an updated version also passed peer review in a mainstream medical journal? What do you think would be better to say about the medical problems caused by lack of health insurance, or would you prefer to leave that out altogether? The version I started with did not say that the US has a progressive income tax, it said the "United States has a progressive tax system" which is not supported by the graph at right. The comment about the top 10% paying the most taxes was sourced to federal income tax only, which is not appropriate for an article on the US in general, which should describe all taxes, which as you can see are regressive at top income levels. EllenCT (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No, your graph comes from a leftist outfit (ITEP) that actively campaigns for higher taxes (check out their website; it's not clear from that graph precisely what they're counting or omitting), and you also deleted a segment breaking down who pays the biggest share of revenue for some reason (and no, it was all federal taxes per the CBO, not just individual income; the source contains further breakdowns). Your graph focuses on alleged "effective tax rate". Two different things. You could have slightly changed the wording if you wanted or even adjusted the numbers to data that you thought more accurately reflected the prose, but there's no good reason to completely delete the fact that most of the taxes are paid by high earners, or that the US has a progressive income tax system. You now lead off what used to be the "income" section with a paragraph on general macroeconomic metrics that belongs and, as I just pointed out, was already mirrored by, the last paragraph in the "Economy" section. Why not just integrate it there as I said? Why totally transform the "Personal Income" section into a multifaceted, largely redundant monstrosity? Your second paragraph starts in on niche specifics, while the top line income information that properly used to lead off the section, contextualized with foreign comparisons, has been buried within a larger paragraph near the end.
Oh, and that macroeconomic section, while neutrally worded and containing good additions, is hardly "the opposite" of a liberal talking point. Liberals would point to the emphasis on the 2007-2008 downturn while nodding approvingly and assuming Bush was somehow to blame, while conservatives would point to the worst recovery on record that's followed and approve inclusion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, your PNHP study is propagandistic garbage and should be deleted. "Peer review" doesn't mean that a study's conclusion on any topic should stated as proved fact. Studies have shown that most of the uninsured are only briefly uninsured due to transitory unemployment, underscoring the methodological flaws I pointed out. Huge chunks of the uninsured are young and healthy, rich and don't need insurance, or people who are eligible for Medicaid but haven't bothered to sign up yet, and you fail to even consider possible costs or negative impact of a government backed "universal" system, so I reject your POV premise that being uninsured is necessarily leading to net deaths. Misplaced Pages should avoid taking sides, as you matter of factly do, on highly controversial topics, particularly when using issue lobbying groups as your source. VictorD7 (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well, what do you think would be neutral to say about the health effects of lack of insurance? There are plenty of sources about how much more it costs when advanced cancer shows up in the emergency room compared to early stages with preventative care screenings. Do you want to pick a source and excerpt? Or a group of them and then I'll propose an excerpt? Or would you like me to propose a set of sources and you pick an excerpt? Or something else?
And similarly, how do you think it is fair to describe the overall tax incidence in the U.S.? Whatever you think of the ITEP (and why do you think they campaign for higher rather than more progressive taxation?) do you know of any sources which disagree with their incidence analysis?
I don’t think the article should say anything about the effects of insurance coverage, even if people didn’t hotly disagree on them. That’s not the page’s role. This is a general country article, not a platform for pushing pet crusades. Look how vague the History section is. Most national wiki articles don’t even have a “Health” section. There are plenty of other pages that address specific topics. The main complaint I’ve heard since I’ve been here is that this article is way too long already by wiki standards.
You mention cancer, but that’s where the US shines. The most comprehensive cancer survival rate study was published by European doctors in 2007, and found the US had significantly higher survival rates than every European nation studied, in part because of better screening in America:
“5-year survival in the USA for all cancers combined was 66•3% (66•0–66•6) in men and 62•9% (62•6–63•2) in women; both of these percentages were significantly higher than those for Europe—ie, 47•3% (46•8 47•8) for men and 55•8% (55•3–56•2) for women, both p values <0•001).”
“With regard to the comparison between EUROCARE and US SEER data, the differences in survival were greatest in 2000–02 for the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56•2% vs 65•5% ), breast (79•0% vs 90•1% ), and prostate cancer (77•5% vs 99•3% ), which probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis. In the USA, 70% of women aged 50–70 years have reported that they have undergone a mammogram in the previous 2 years; 35 one-third of people reported that they had undergone sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the previous 5 years; 36 and over 80% of men aged 65 years or older reported that they had undergone prostate-specific antigen, of whom 40% had been tested in the previous year.37”
"The differences in survival are due to a variety of reasons, including factors related to cancer services (eg, organisation, training and skills of health-care professionals, application of evidence-based guidelines, and investment in diagnostic and treatment facilities), and clinical factors (eg, tumour stage and biology). Survival represents the end result of the complex interplay of these factors, whose individual contribution to survival cannot be distinguished easily, although studies in the USA38 and the UK39 have shown that improvements in treatment and screening probably had a major effect in decreasing breast cancer mortality."
Given the emphasis already in the article on the raw number of uninsured, something should probably be added about census data (roughly consistent over the years) showing that only a small subset is involuntarily uninsured, much less for an extended period of time. 68% of the uninsured have incomes over $25,000, and 37% make over $50k a year. 19% make over $75k. 54.5% are 34 or younger, and generally in less need of regular treatment than older people. Millions on the low income end are eligible for Medicaid but haven’t signed up, or are illegal aliens.
Someone could conceivably also add “Economy/Taxation/and/or Welfare” to your title, perhaps even adding studies by Moynihan and others over the years on the destructive impact of too much welfare state on inner city culture, and its role in entrenching a cycle of poverty, but I left your income section changes alone for now. I’ll probably be busy with other things for the next few days, but soon I’ll develop some my edits of my own to add to yours. I’m fine with including things like “effective tax rate”, but do believe we should be clear and precise about what we’re saying, which is the only reason why I mentioned your graph’s leftist origin and opaque nature. Are we lumping in things like capital gains with regular income? Property taxes (based on assets rather than income, and can really complicate questions of "progressivity")? Including local/state tax (your graph does say, “state” and “local”, but I’m talking general rhetorical questions here)? Different outfits have used different methodologies even when discussing the same things. According to the Tax Policy Center, another left leaning outfit, the total federal effective tax rates are certainly progressive, with the top to bottom quintile arrangements 23.2%, 15.1%, 11.1%, 6.8%, 1% as of 2009.
At the very least the US federal tax system is progressive. Even your state/local/federal graph shows a progressive effective structure until you get to the top 1%, where elements like sales or gas tax might cause them to slip slightly below the preceding 19%, but remain above the lower 80%. In some states the effective total rate for the top 1% is much higher.
I think it’s worth restoring the breakdown of who’s paying what percent of the total revenue pie. Such information is at least as relevant as “progressivity”, particularly given the misleading impression left by all the “fair share” political talk, and since an overly skewed burden can lead to more volatile swings in revenue. On balance I'm inclined to leave your economic additions in place, though I might tweak the order a little. We can hash that out later. VictorD7 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I will reply to each point in order, at the end of this section. There are so many threads I think it will be less confusing to keep replies together instead of having them broken into two, as I did because I had composed my reply yesterday at the same time you added a paragraph to yours, so I got another edit conflict. So please see below.... EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, life expectancy is already mentioned, and you explicitly tied it to healthcare spending (using the word "but"), a value judgement that's highly dubious given that first world differences in life expectancy are primarily driven by factors like genetics (including ethnic makeup), diet and other lifestyle choices, obesity, car wrecks, differences in counting infant mortality, etc.. Look at the huge variation in LE within systems like the UK between regions like England and Scotland, or Australia between whites and aborigines, for example. VictorD7 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree that lifestyle choices or obesity (which is now the leading cause of death in the developed world) is unrelated to the health insurance and healthcare cost situation, and the NIH reference from 2013 I replaced the 2005 statistics with supports that with several facts. The comment about ethnicity and genetics is contradicted by the fact that less than two generations ago the US had among (within a few years from Japan's outlier) the longest life expectancy in the developed world. What is your source for "differences in counting infant mortality"? I see that more and more often, but I don't know where it comes from. EllenCT (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is obese simply because they lack healthcare coverage (especially briefly), but it doesn't matter because these are very complex issues and a Misplaced Pages country article isn't the place for hashing them out or pushing a political agenda. You're also ignoring the changing ethnic makeup of the US, the sharp rise in obesity in just the past couple of decades, and the highly likely relationship of that to women working/sky rocketing fast food consumption/decreased childhood exercise. I've posted expansive information here before on infant mortality, using the CDC as my source, but it was deleted in common agreement when the pre-existing text motivating it and implying causation was altered. You didn't address the examples I cited of wide LE variance within nations or between nations with similar so called "universal" coverage. And should we get into the economic impact of a government healthcare system by, for example, pointing out that Americans have around a 20% higher per capita GDP (PPP, IMF 2011) than Canadians, Australians, and Swedes? Or are only left-wingers allowed to choose the parameters of in article debate? How about a new section on tort abuse and how the US is an outlier in regards to loser pays laws? Do you have any idea what this page would turn into if both sides just started spamming talking points on issues from their sides' think tanks and other sources? VictorD7 (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The NIH report says that many people are obese because they avoid preventative care and physicals where they would be counseled. If you have sources for any meaningful change in ethnic makeup affecting longevity or a URL for the information you've posted about infant mortality, would you share them please? And I've never seen a scoring of even a radical tort reform proposal which amounted to more than a tiny fraction of healthcare spending. I'd love to read the one you're looking at. As for life expectancy, do you have any problems with ? EllenCT (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Both EllenCT and VictorD7 have a better handle on economics than do I, but I hope there is a way y’all, yuz-guys, can show the difference between a. the progressive federal tax in the big-print summary, b. the progressive but less so -- effective -- federal tax after deductions and exclusions, rich and poor, adjusted for audit estimated variations, VERSUS the comparatively regressive state and local taxes on a. income, b. real estate, and c. sales, luxury and gas, food and medicine.
Two good online sources, Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation, periodically publish on the related topics with updates, but I have not followed them in parallel for a while, getting old. They generally fold in research from "the literature" including reliable studies from less-well-known sources, left, center, right -- that feature is a part of their street-cred effecting national and state policy making ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Your NIH meta-study was a highly speculative (full of words like “might” and “may”), scattershot, 400 page call to left wing action that offered shallow insight on a huge array of topics from firearms to voter participation, and spent a whole chapter openly cheerleading the “social democratic” model exemplified by Sweden (despite incredibly, if briefly, conceding that Sweden ranked better in metrics like infant mortality long before establishing its welfare system, and while conveniently ignoring the large number of nations in the world with expansive, centralized governments that are hell holes), but even it admitted that the life expectancy difference is due to life style factors like those I mentioned earlier (along with drug/alcohol abuse, homicides, etc.). Essentially it’s caused by risky behavior. Americans are a different people than Western Europeans and Japanese, with a different culture. Your piece spent much time vaguely endorsing the notion of “intervention”, but I didn’t see a fact based argument in favor of “preventative” healthcare for obesity.
However, in addition to echoing what I said about the US having the best cancer screening in the world, it conceded that Americans are more likely to have their blood pressure and cholesterol checked, and to access related medication than Europeans. Those factual points truly illustrate preventative healthcare. The belief that more “counsel(ing)” would somehow reduce obesity assumes that people don’t know large amounts of junk food and lack of exercise make you fat. It’s not like doctor’s offices are the primary venue for public information campaigns, or like the obesity epidemic is limited to the involuntarily uninsured. It also ignores the fact that culturally similar nations like Britain and Australia are rapidly catching up to the US in obesity, despite their government healthcare systems. Rather than an artifact of America’s semi-private healthcare system, the obesity epidemic is an international phenomenon. The US was likely on the trend’s vanguard because it’s the richest country with the cheapest food.
Your own source mentioned ethnic differences as one of many factors contributing to life expectancy differences, and added a note about different nations counting infant mortality differently. Those “coding” differences are a minor factor (why I listed other stuff), but my edit last year used CDC and other sources to point out that the infant mortality difference is largely due to premature births, which in turn is largely due to the USA’s higher rate of teenage pregnancy, conclusions echoed by your NIH study. The CDC also points out that the premature American babies have a higher survival rate than premature European babies (though there are more of the former). Again, these are symptoms of culture and lifestyle choices, not the healthcare system per se. Actual healthcare quality is probably better illustrated by survival rates and the fact, repeated in your piece, that Americans over 75 have a higher life expectancy than those of the same age in other nations, since people that age are less likely to engage in stat skewing risky behaviors. In fairness that could also be at least partly a function of selection, though it’s amazing how often the world’s oldest person is either American or Japanese.
I mentioned tort abuse as a hypothetical new section about the litigiousness of American society in general, not specifically regarding health, but since you bring it up tort reform advocates over the years have claimed frivolous suits significantly impact healthcare in a variety of ways, from compelling doctors to practice unnecessary and costly defensive medicine, to driving up premiums, to forcing biomed companies to maintain liability reserves greater than their R&D budgets. They might also be contributing to the growing US doctor shortage. I’m not sure what the purpose of your last blog and question are. VictorD7 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
VictorD7, although US GDP PPP is higher, according to the IMF, 2011 GDP per capita was $50,496 (Canada), 66,371 (Australia), and $57,638 (Sweden), compared with $48,328 for the U.S.. ITEP is not "left-wing", nor does it advocate higher taxes. And the connection between receiving timely health care and longevity is uncontested. Of course there are other factors relating to high mortality in the U.S. such as higher levels of poverty, violence, substance abuse and obesity. TFD (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
PPP is the standard for international comparisons because it smooths out currency distortions. ITEP is dedicated to promoting tax increases on “the rich” and attacking conservative policies, so it’s fair to call them left wing. Of course the premise that Americans don’t receive timely care and that the alleged discrepancy results in the LE gap is contested. Do Japanese receive significantly timelier care than Australians and Brits? What about English versus Scottish? As for “poverty”, even the NIH report (briefly) concedes that Americans have a lower "absolute" poverty rate than Europeans, though it spends far more time obsessing on the absurd Marxist construct of “relative poverty”. “Relative” poverty increases when, all things being equal, someone else does too well. VictorD7 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Life expectancy compared to healthcare spending from 1970 to 2008, in the US and the next 19 most wealthy countries by total GDP.
On cancer: We agree that the US has the best cancer survival rates, but I think that does not warrant inclusion because of the low overall life expectancy (as shown in the graph I had tried to ask you about), which is offset in part because of the larger cancer incidence in the US. But I asked about cost ("how much more it costs when advanced cancer shows up in the emergency room compared to early stages with preventative care screenings") which we all pay for in increased hospital charges because of the uninsured.
On the uninsured: I agree that we should describe the uninsured, but I disagree with your apparent contention that "illegal aliens" are "involuntarily uninsured." In fact, they and all the other nominally uninsured are insured de facto by the funds from our higher hospital costs because they all obtain universal coverage at the emergency room, but not preventative care. A de facto universal coverage system which explicitly excludes preventative care is absurd from both conservative and liberal points of view.
Average tax rate percentages for the highest-income U.S. taxpayers, 1945-2009
On tax rates: I wasn't proposing to include the ITEP graph above, but if you think we should then I do too. Yes, it does include state and local, property and sales, capital gains and estate, and the carried interest exemption. I object to stating that some upper percentage carries most of the tax burden, because that is skewed by the top 1% for whom overall rates and income tax rates (because of shelters) are both regressive, and have been becoming more regressive over time. Picking some cutoff income level and saying how much more the people making more and less than it pay in taxes obscures these facts to the point of giving the reader the opposite impression overall. The statement "the US federal tax system is progressive" is false for the top 1% and above because of their increasing use of tax shelters. Income at the top 1% is so many times more than, e.g., the top 95th percentile, that it would seriously mislead readers to suggest that their taxes are progressive.
On life expectancy: Suppose obesity is entirely responsible for the US's failure to keep up with other industrialized countries in life expectancy, and obesity is entirely due to an ostensible good such as inexpensive food. Is that really any reason not to mention that the US has fallen behind in life expectancy? Most Americans are not over 75, and time will tell how well the retiring baby boomers end up doing. I am still interested in reading your source about how ethnic makeup has changed life expectancy in the US since the 1980s.
On infant mortality: Regarding your "edit last year used CDC and other sources to point out that the infant mortality difference is largely due to premature births, which in turn is largely due to the USA’s higher rate of teenage pregnancy, conclusions echoed by your NIH study" -- could you please tell me the URL to the edit or the sources, and the page number for the NIH study?
On tort reform: I read the source you linked to, and I can't tell how much in dollars per year they think tort reform will save in total. But it's not a neutral source. The CBO has scored several tort reform bills, usually around $25 billion if I remember right, and with serious caveats about the effect on quality of care. Centrist think tanks generally agree with their figures, as far as I can remember.
On whether more progressive taxation is liberal: I have found a sharp difference between Republicans who no longer depend on donations from the rich, such as Bruce Bartlett, Paul O'Neill, David Stockman and Sheila Bair and those who are still in Congress or work for the RNC or other organizations dependent on donations from the very wealthy (e.g. Heritage and Cato.) For example, see this Sheila Bair NYT op-ed from a month ago. Most Republicans who no longer depend on the rich -- and aren't rich themselves, and truly grass-roots Tea Partiers, all think the economy has become too top-heavy as far as I can see. If you know of counter-examples I would like to read about them.
On US poverty relative to Europe: I think you will find that the US has far more poverty, especially extreme poverty and child poverty, than Western Europe and Scandinavia, but that Eastern Europe has enough to offset the "European" average to which you referred. EllenCT (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This article should be a collection of summaries of other more specific articles on the various subjects that fall within the scope of this article, perhaps all this content belongs in one of those articles, and a balanced and neutrally worded summary (as briefly as possible of course)(say a paragraph or two) can be included.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
On cancer I cited the USA's superior survival rates to illustrate actual healthcare quality, as opposed to incidence (determined by genetics, environment, lifestyle, diet, etc.), and emphasized higher US screening rates to undermine the assumption that Americans somehow aren't getting preventative care.
On the uninsured Arguably, or one could counter that the superior American preventative care exhibited by things like the aforementioned higher screening and survival rates could be diminished if the current system was replaced by a centrally planned, government system, making what problems the US does have worse on net, especially if the underlying cultural factors actually driving the LE difference aren't magically fixed. It's a controversial issue, and the current article keeps that can of worms bottled up with a simple statement declaring that it's a "major political issue."
On taxes I just said I'd be fine adding effective tax rate distribution (federal and/or overall) if you wanted to when I restored the revenue burden breakdown you deleted (with updated numbers). The CBO, Tax Policy Center page I linked to, and other sources disagree with your statement about the federal system not being progressive. A progressive tax is one with rate gradation. It's arguable whether "effective rate" even necessarily matters to the classification, though even the federal effective federal rates are progressive. I'm not sure exactly what new edits I'll introduce, but it'll be a few days from now, and of course you or anyone else will be free to express concerns or disagreements. Clear descriptions of the numbers given should alleviate concerns over readers being misled.
On life expectancy The article already gives US life expectancy, its world ranking, and a comment about how that ranking has fallen some in recent years. People can look at facts here (and hopefully elsewhere) and draw their own conclusions. My objection was to your inclusion of a value judgement tying spending to life expectancy, with the assumption that one should necessarily follow the other. Much of US healthcare spending is on high end, niche treatments (cosmetic, vital, quality of life, athletic, etc.) that drive innovation (benefiting the world) but can't be assumed to offer a one to one improvement in LE without diminishing returns. And, not that this should be in the article either, but spending per GDP is a red herring. There's nothing inherently wrong with high aggregate healthcare spending. The actual problem is price per treatment, but that's a debate for another day, and not for this page. The bottom line is that this is a highly speculative and controversial issue. Your own NIH source cautions against statements of certainty, though it makes it clear that the uninsured phenomenon is not primarily if at all responsible for the LE difference.
On infant mortality I meant to add smoking/drinking while pregnant, obesity, and other lifestyle choices to teenage pregnancy, the point being that's it not due to healthcare per se. There are also huge racial disparities. I'll let you read through your own source, but here's a CDC source for the primary role premature births play:
CDC (2009)"If the United States had Sweden’s distribution of births by gestational age, nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower. The main cause of the United States’ high infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the very high percentage of preterm births in the United States."
On tort reform I explicitly identified them as "tort reform advocates". I'm extremely skeptical when any think tank or individual self identifies as totally "neutral" or "centrist". Such people are usually either disingenuous or too ignorant to recognize their own leanings. I'm also skeptical of precise future forecasting claims by any side. The poor CBO has to per its mandate, while openly acknowledging its own (often artificially imposed) limitations, but its predictions are frequently wrong and it rarely considers every important factor. Most of the costs of tort abuse are impossible to quantify since it alters behavior in so many ways with effects that ripple throughout society. I'm not sure how this is relevant though. Again, I wasn't seriously proposing an edit, but cited tort status as a hypothetical new section (not just in relation to health) merely to illustrate that alternative, non-leftist article format agendas were possible, and that there were areas where liberals are glad the US is dramatically different from the rest of the first world. I also could have mentioned things like school choice, the high US education spending per pupil with increasingly dim public school K-12 results, charitable giving (by ideology and religious belief), the sociological problems with the sharp rise in single parent homes, the general migration from high tax states to lower tax states, the impact of public unions, the rate and effects of abortion, and a host of other issues. There's a lot more to a country than "economic equality", global ranking of execution frequency, and cherry-picked aspects of its healthcare system compared to the rest of a hand-picked group of nations.
On whether more progressive taxation is liberal The New York Times, even its guest op-ed page, is a poor source for insight into conservative or libertarian philosophy. Bair is arguing for a capital gains tax hike, a tax Democrat Clinton and a Republican Congress cut to positive effect in the 1990s, and that the UK recently raised to disastrous and counterproductive effect. Clinton cutting the tax rate didn't mean it became a liberal thing to do just because he was a generally liberal guy. What matters is what direction you're trying to pull the country in. A tax hiking program is a liberal one. You're confusing "Republican" with "conservative", and you listed a few Republicans who have either always been on the moderate to liberal side of the party or have moved there in recent years. Other Republicans and some Democrats have moved in the opposite direction. Grassroots conservatives, much less Tea Partiers, don't generally rely on donations from anyone, and most certainly do not support tax hikes on "the rich", small businesses, or anyone else. Certainly most small business owners ("rich donors"?) are hostile to various proposals to hike their taxes. Replacing the income tax with a sales tax or enacting a flat tax are ideas that still have enormous populist and intellectual cache among regular conservative and libertarian citizens. The premises behind "progressive" taxation and redistributive government policies have certainly been anathema to libertarians since Socialist politician Eugene Debs and other progressives thrust them into the national conversation over a century ago. These are competing world views, no donor conspiracy theories required. Besides, Democrats have plenty of rich donors. After all, a wealthy guy won't be hurt by a tax hike. He can always just splurge a little less in luxury purchases, maybe lay off an employee or two, cut back on some worker hours, maybe reduce an investment, or avoid funding a risky venture.
On poverty relative to Europe Here's what your NIH report says (pages 171-172):
“Absolute poverty is a basis for comparing incomes across countries against a common benchmark (such as a given level of income in U.S. dollars). Analyses that have used a common data set to compare countries in terms of absolute poverty find that other countries seem to have higher rates than the United States (Kenworth, 1998; Sharpe, 2011; Smeeding, 2006). This finding reflects the higher overall standard of living in the United States (Smeeding, 2006). For example, in one analysis, the U.S. absolute poverty rate was lower than 8 of 10 high-income countries (Gornick and Jantti, 2010)."VictorD7 (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to be brief and wrap this up as much as possible, and simply skip the topics where I don't see any discussion of changes to the article and where I don't want to thank you for pointing me to specifics. (Taxes:) If we include the incidence chart, as happened today when someone else added a new "Government finance" section and I objected to a statement about "one of the most progressive systems of taxes in the world" sourced to an op-ed and an OECD report that pretty much said the opposite in terms of income inequality, then I don't object to including a statement about paying more taxes at different levels; I only ask that the top 1% be included so that it's obvious how skewed their income and taxes are. (Infant mortality:) Thank you for clarifying that with the link. I believe that poor access to health care and poverty in general is one of the primary reasons for the large number of premature births. (Whether more progressive taxation is liberal:) Here's another long-time conservative Republican, Peggy Noonan, in a Wall Street Journal editorial this month, saying much the same thing as Bair ("It’s not a debt and deficit crisis, it’s a jobs crisis.") I believe we will continue to see such transitions because of the record low Republican party favorability rating. (Poverty:) Thank you also for pointing me to that extract. Absolute poverty is not adjusted for purchasing power parity and the relative poverty rate on page 342 of Gornick and Jantti, 2010 shows the situation in terms of median incomes, which have been falling in the U.S. as it is. EllenCT (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll develop a tax edit when I get a chance in a few days. Regarding infant mortality, I reject the premise that pregnant women don't know they shouldn't drink or smoke while pregnant, especially if they watch tv or have talked to any random person on the street about it. The warning is on every freaking box of cigarettes and alcoholic beverage they buy. Some just don't care. I think some people are just irresponsible. It's reasonable to assume that irresponsible people are more likely to be poor than responsible people are. That's not an indictment of all poor people, but a statement on tendencies. However, your report repeatedly made it clear that the risky behavior issue far transcends the medically uninsured, and is a sub cultural phenomenon. I'm not sure why you posted the Noonan column. Conservatives have always stressed that it's a "jobs crisis", and she blasted the federal tax code and regulations (explicitly naming Obamacare) as drags on the economy. She's always been more of a speech writer than an ideologue or policy expert, and she's taken some shots at her own side in the past, but not in that piece. Regardless, a Republican supporting a particular tax hike might still be a generally conservative guy supporting a liberal policy. A foundation dedicated to advocating tax hikes generally at a variety of levels in a variety of ways is a liberal outfit. As for favorability ratings, those swing like a pendulum. On taxes in particular polls typically show a majority support "higher" taxes on "the rich" (though they support spending cuts even more strongly), but most people don't even realize what the top rates are. An early 2012 survey found that when asked what the rate should be on families earning $250k or more, 88% of Americans said 35% or lower, 75% said 30% or lower, 61% said 25% or lower, and 38% said 20% or lower. 56% said the top corporate rate should be 25% or less. Of course when the media finds the question wording that gets the results they want, you see a thousand dully repetitive polls conducted over the next year, each one enthusiastically covered as "news", but I don't think I've seen another survey actually asking people what they think the top tax rate should be. Regarding poverty, adjusting for PPP should generally boost US rankings, and median income has fallen in many countries recently. Europe, having embraced the so called "balanced" approach of tax hikes plus (mostly promised future) spending cuts, has dipped back into recession. VictorD7 (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
ADDITION - I went ahead and deleted the chart because the internal federal component had wildly different numbers than other outfits like the CBO and Tax Policy Institute. They both show the top 1% with around a 30% total federal rate alone over the years. In fact the TPC is now forecasting that to spike to 35.5% 2013 and higher in the coming years. Seattle Times Tax bill for rich, Their federal numbers State/local numbers are likely even dicier given the abundant variation and numerous methodological options. VictorD7 (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You may be using the nominal rate instead of the effective rate due to deductions and tax shelters. See or for example. has historical averages. They do vary somewhat from year to year, as shown in the graph above. EllenCT (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, I have no idea what the conflict is here, but I just wanted to point out that references 218-221 are broken at present. All these are in the Economy section, and I really have no idea where they got broken or how to fix them. Could someone involved in this dispute take a look at it? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I fixed one that was my fault (sorry) but the other four broken refs are from Pepesia and I don't know where they are supposed to go. I'll ask on Pepesia's talk page. EllenCT (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I found one ref to cover three of the missing ones, and the other one was redundant (referring to a ref which was almost right next to it) so these are all fixed now. EllenCT (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Tax incidence section break
My sources are marked "effective" (or "average") tax rates, and show a negative liability for the lowest quintile in some years. Are there any sources that independently show results similar to the ITEP numbers? Your CBO source is dated but seems to echo mine, and the other one (the one written by an Obama donor named Thomas Hungerford at the height of a campaign, and later withdrawn by the CRS after being widely panned as an infantile economic analysis that ignored numerous pertinent variables) focuses on the top "0.1%" and "0.01%" rather than the "1%". VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw that, but I doubt it's actually referring to the effective income tax rate. see page 10 here, for example. Since the 2000s tax cuts, the effective rate on the top 1% went down from that. says 20.6% for 2007, says 23.4% (with the top 1%'s group share as 37.4%) for 2010, and says "average" is 24.01% for 2009. None of them match the CBO blog post for 2006 at 31.2%, which, if you look at the beginning of the sentence, is probably just the non-sheltered "average rate" just like the TPC table for 2004. EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it looks like those are just referring to the individual income tax, rather than all federal taxes. TCP gives a total effective federal rate of 31.3% for the top 1% in 2006, very close to the CBO's 31.2% (there's a link to the PDF in the blog post; TCP and CBO generally track over time), and says it includes corporate, payroll, and estate taxes. The 2012 NY Times brief also mentions payroll taxes, but it's not clear what else is included or precisely what "2007" CBO data set they're using. VictorD7 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a complicated issue. One can argue that in the long run everyone pays any tax on any part of the economy. But that PGPF piece simply uses the Tax Policy Center as a source (laid out with clear charts), and the TPC's methodology is similar to the CBO's, independently producing almost the same numbers over time. The TPC is the liberal equivalent of the conservative Tax Foundation, the former a joint venture between the Urban Institute and Brookings Institute, both left leaning think tanks, so it's not like it has a right wing agenda. As for corporate profitability, that's recently mostly been driven by overhead slashing (lay offs) and a cautious posture on domestic expansion due to a terrible policy environment. I was amused by The Atlantic describing profits as a "bite" out of the economy though. VictorD7 (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The U.S. federal effective corporate income tax rate, 1947-2011
Are you saying that the TPC attributes corporate taxes to the securities' holders, too? I don't see that in their tables, or in the Tax Foundation publications. If you believe that markets are relatively efficient, prices are relatively elastic, and there is usually sufficient competition, then corporations would be expected to split their tax burden with their customers, but with increasing asymmetric information, consolidation, and rent seeking, I would be more inclined to suggest that you are confusing cause and effect. Poor business investment in the face of astronomical profits is primarily because you don't get the low corporate rates shown at right without keeping cash tied up in a Caribbean post office box, typically 80% of profits for any company able to hire a tax attorney part time. No business investment means no hiring. I agree that is a terrible policy environment. So, what should the article say and/or show about tax incidence, and about these related topics we've been discussing? EllenCT (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure, having the highest corporate tax rate in the world makes for an uncompetitive environment, especially when the US taxes globally rather than territorially like most other nations do, prompting companies like Apple and others to leave over a trillion dollars they'd prefer to bring home overseas. I'm not sure what cause and effect you feel I'm confused about. I'm also not sure why you're still confused about these effective rate breakdowns. The PGPF piece just used TPC data. I only linked to it because it explained things clearly (complete with charts!). Here's the TPC page it cited: Tax Policy Center; Average Effective Federal Tax Rates 2011. They attribute a 7.7 effective corporate income tax rate to the top 1% (30.4% overall). The numbers are identical to the PGPF page. If you don't like them your argument is with them, the CBO, and the various studies conducted. As to what the article should say, I haven't decided yet and will get back to you. I just felt obligated to take a little time and explain why I deleted the CTJ/ITEP chart.VictorD7 (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I see now that attributes the "employer’s share of ... corporate tax liability" to employees, and not even the owners. I'm pretty sure at least some portion is borne by customers and securities holders. That would make look much more like the CTJ/IETP bar chart above. In any case, thanks again for the discussion and I'll wait to see what you come up with. EllenCT (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
TPC"TPC assumes that....owners of capital bear the burden of the corporate income tax in proportion to their income from capital (in the form of smaller returns on their investments)..."
CBO"Corporate income taxes are distributed to households according to their share of capital income."
I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers and others, but then I think other taxes are at least partially passed on in various ways too, as I illustrated earlier with my income tax hike on the rich guy comments. That said, if one is going to develop effective tax rate incidence charts, then corporate taxes should be imputed to the owners, since they're the ones most directly paying them. VictorD7 (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Territory issue needs formal Request For Comment (RFC)
How to proceed here may be to have those that believe the territories are not a part of the US to write out their proposed text below with the secondary references formatted as inline citations as it would be in the article. Then below that add your bullet pointed reasoning or supportive primary or tertiary sources. Those believing that the territories are a part of the US should do the same.
I know we have already done something similar (we may have done it several times) but I think the best thing to do here is as a formal RFC. Please guys, if we cannot come to terms with a dispute, the answer is to turn to the wider community. Please make your bullet pointed arguments below and I will copy them into a formal RFC with the question begun as "A dispute over whether or not the United States of America includes DC and the territories needs outside input. Blow are the arguments from both sides. Please indicate which proposal you support directly below the one you agree with."
Bullet point argument for the US including DC and territories as part of the country
Proposal as it would appear in the article with secondary sources formatted as inline citations to replace this text.
Bullet point argument for the US excluding DC and territories as part of the country
Proposal as it would appear in the article with secondary sources formatted as inline citations to replace this text.
the remaining territories of the U.S. are considered unincorporated (not part of of the U.S.) under U.S. law, as determined by the insular cases
as a result, the whole constitution does not apply to them, although most rights have been extended by statute, and Congress may cede or grant independence without a constitutional amendment
the U.S. listed the inhabited countries with the U.N. as non-self governing territories by the U.S., although several were removed after the U.S. said they were separate states in free association with the U.S.
in international law they are dependencies with the right to self-determination
(Disclaimer. *THIS IS NOT THE RFC!* Editors, do not add support !votes until this has been formalized.
I'm not sure a formal RFC is appropriate, at least not as framed here. As shown above, that there are arguments for even excluding DC indicates that at least from a legal standpoint, the definition of the United States is very complex, and for sure, my own view doesn't fit under either of the above subsections. My belief is that the Insular Cases set the baseline level, that the territories aren't included unless Congress includes them. Since then, Congress has included the territories for certain purposes (as some laws' definition sections evidence). I feel fairly confident that we have or are nearing a consensus that the actual status is complex. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not see that an RfC would be helpful. I can imagine the reponses: they speak English in Puerto Rico, it's called "American" Samoa, I don't need a passport to go to USVI, etc. We never determined the criteria - is it a legal issue? Also, no one has argued that D.C. is not part of the U.S. Since its area was originally part of existing states, it cannot be removed from the U.S. except through constitutional amendment. TFD (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Generally agreed. Perhaps that's where an RFC would be helpful though—in determining the criteria generally for saying what a country is. While I don't disagree that opening the floor would invite misinformed responses, there's nothing to say this article would be bound by such responses. As a linguist, my personal belief is we should go by the common usage, whatever that is. Legal usage is important in some contexts, but as the legal history and laws show, it's a big damn mess. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
We can frame this to include a third option or even a fourth, but clearly this is still dragging on and editors here alone are unable to resolve the issue. I only offered this to editors to allow them to frame their own arguments themselves but if no one is interested in this collaboration I will boldly create an RFC from the supplied arguments already presented. Now...if the actual reason to avoid an RFC at this point is because editors prefer formal mediation or arbitration then please state that and we can move in that direction. If I am simply misreading the above and editors have resolved the issue...that is great!--Amadscientist (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This all belongs in a terminology section, in the DRN discussion, I believe that many of us there agreed that the lead needed to be brief, concise and ambigious and in the body of the article a terminology section would be included that evenly, neutrally, and in a verifiable manor provided content about U.S. with territories, U.S. without territories, and the other differing definitions that can be verified.
Why can we not begin working on a draft version of such a section in a talk sub-page, and then once it has consensus, written neutrally, and is well cited, it can then be moved into the article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
No, you're not confused. I saw a small debate above but I believe it was just being used as an example, There have been some disputes in the past about it but only in a technical sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the options can be changed in any manner you feel is correct. I don't feel I should be required to so it. Anyone may after discussing it. If you would like, please feel free to do so, but I thought the editors didn't like the idea of this format.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
A simple proposal
That the term "United States" cover any place where the laws of the United States are paramount. Even an uninhabited island can be part of a nation, folks, so the "Insular Cases" of a century or more ago are of nugatory value in this discussion. If a person doing something somewhere is subject to the laws of a specific nation, then they are in that nation. If their acts are not subject to the laws of that nation, then they are not in that nation. This also ends some irredentist claims of independence - if a nation's laws apply in an area, then the area is in the nation regardless of whether the nation acqured the land rightly or wrongly. The common name of an area does not disappear (thus the island remained "Puerto Rico" regardless of what nation it has been in). Collect (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
U.S. citizens abroad are subject to the laws of the United States. So if I live in Tokyo, then Tokyo is part of the United States? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope - if you are in Japan you are subject to the laws of Japan as the paramount laws affecting you. Not the laws of the US. Cheers - but that cavil fails. Collect (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The authority of a government can extend beyond its territory. For instance, the territorial waters of the United States only goes so far, however the Exclusive Economic Zone goes out multiple times further. A U.S. flagged ship in a foreign port operates under U.S. laws, as do U.S. registered aircraft, but it is also subject to the laws of that foreign port or the airspace which it is flying in. Sure in a manor every U.S. owned embassy, consulate, diplomatic facility, overseas military base, etc. can be said to be the United States, but at the same time they cannot be.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Weirdly enough - the embassy is US territory - but such trivial bits should not affect what we tell readers at all. Heck, Australia has a tiny bit of Hawaii - but it is not normally considered significant <g>. `Collect (talk)
That is a myth. U.S. embassies overseas are in the countries where they are. However, international agreements over diplomacy provide immunity to diplomats, hence their homes and offices are treated as foreign territory. That explains why the Iranian Embassy at Hyde Park remained derelict for many years until the council repossessed it. TFD (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Embassies are "foreign territory" by convention and not as a matter of "legal territory" vide the fact that new embassies can be built on other land, and the old embassy then not being "foreign" any more -- the concept of "territory" does not include "portability" LOL! The reasoning for the "foreign" rule is practical and developed over a great many years, and is not related to it being a defined part of the mother nation at all. History of Embassies from 1855. In fact, many ambassadors live in rental buildings which do not become part of the "embassy" as "foreign soil" in any case. I fear you rely too much on The Man Who Knew Too Much. makes this clear: Althought there may be in the public mind an image of embassies and consulates representing foreign soil as an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction, modern international law does not support this position, as the Radwan case demonstrates. Clear enough? Now please stop using non-germane arguemnts here. Collect (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Collect, you just essentially repeated what I said then wrote, "Clear enough? Now please stop using non-germane arguemnts here." TFD (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Collect, could you please provide a source that makes that argument, because it is not my understanding of public international law. It would mean that colonies of the European empires were/are part of the European states. RCLC, under common law, nationals are subject to the laws of their state when they enter terra nullius. So Gilligan etc. were all subject to U.S. law even though the island was not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
"Paramount law" is from MArbury v. Madison - it is what the Supreme Court stated to be a defining characteristic of the US that the consitution is "paramount law" in the US. Thus it is reasonable from that to aver that any place subject to the US Constitution as its paramount law is reasonably part of the United States for that purpose. West's Law Dicitonary states : Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.. As the Constitution expressly gives certain such powers to the republic, and area which is thus subject to such powers by the republic is part of the "sovereign state" and if it lacks such powers, it is not a "sovereign state." So Marbury appears quite dispositive of this AFAICT by using "paramount". Unless a place has something which overrides the Constitution as the supreme law - it is not "sovereign". Collect (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
As Marbury is one of the core decisions, yes. The Insular Cases were limited in scope, and rendered irrelevant by later actions (Philippine independence, commonwealth status for PR etc.) That which was "true" in 1910 is not applicable today because the underlying facts have changed. Collect (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually when I said that I was thinking about federal sex tourism laws, but I guess that's a slightly different matter. The way 18 U.S.C.§ 2423 is worded, it criminalizes someone's movement in commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct. So the crime is, by statute, complete once you move in commerce, not once you engage in the sexual conduct overseas. And those laws are in place primarily to enforce treaty provisions. I'm actually not too clear on extraterritoriality then. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
U.S. treason laws apply to nationals wherever they happen to be. That is why I was interested to know if Americans can renounce their nationality. TFD (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
A bit far afield when THAT WAS NOT THE CLAIM I MADE. The US "paramount law" (as stated by SCOTUS) is what is important -- is the US Constitution PARAMOUNT LAW anywhere other than in the US? Unless you can show that your aside is irrelevant utterly and completely here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide any sources that support your unique interpretation? (If you want examples, there is Guantanamo Bay, and any other areas that the US has occupied.) TFD (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Guantanamo is not claimed as US territory and your bringing it up after it was pointed out that it is a leasehold is getting tendentious. It is not relevant to this discussion. Collect (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You just asked "is the US Constitution PARAMOUNT LAW anywhere other than in the US?" Yes, in Guantamo Bay, which as you correctly point out is not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
And the "paramount law" for the leasehold is the treaty which established the lease. You seem remarkably tendentious on this bit - but the US constitution is not the "paramount law" at Guantanamo - the treaty is. Cheers - now can you get back to reasonable discussion instead of saying that people said what they did not say, and that up is down? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Until Boumediene, few commentators would have guessed that the Insular Cases were going to form the basis for a holding that constitutional rights apply extraterritorially, whether in Guantánamo or anywhere else. The Insular Cases, a series of Supreme Court decisions handed down between 1901 and 1922, have long been reviled as the cases that held that most of the Constitution does not “follow the flag” outside the United States. These decisions, which dealt with the status of the then-recently annexed territories of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam, introduced into the Court's jurisprudence on the territories an unprecedented distinction between “incorporated” and “unincorporated” territories: Incorporated territories were known as such because they had been “incorporated into” the United States and thereby made an integral part of the United States (even if they had not yet been admitted into statehood); unincorporated territories, in turn, “belonged to” but were not “a part of” the United States (and might never become states of the Union). Previously, the “territory” referred to in the Constitution's Territory Clause—which empowers Congress “to make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”—had been considered part of the “United States.” But with the Insular Cases came the unincorporated territory, a place that was, in the Court's tortured formulation, “foreign to the United States in a domestic sense.”
The judgment also relies on common law, mentioning that English courts could send prerogative writs to UK colonies, even though the colonies were not part of England, or the UK for that matter. TFD (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
All writs were in the name of "The Crown" and not in the name of the "United Kingdom." Queen Victoria was not "Queen of India - her title was Empress of India. She was Queen of Canada and so the writs were in the name of the Crown in Canada, and Elizabeth II is also "Queen of Canada". She was "Queen of Kenya" also. And "Queen of the Bahamas". In short - your claims are inapt, incorrect, wrong, and blatantly not on point. Collect (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Then I suggest you write to the Supreme Court and tell them their reasoning was faulty. And in fact the writs were not in the name of the Crown in Canada because (a) they were issued by English courts and (b) the concept of the "Queen of Canada" was not legally accepted until 1982. TFD (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Right. So Boumediene at least supports the idea that the Constitution has some extraterritorial effect. Burnett is quite a source by the way. Holy crap. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It does. So the argument that part of the constitution applies to PR, therefore it is part of the U.S. fails, because it applies equally to Guantanamo Bay, which is part of Cuba. TFD (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Except for the fact that the treaty with Cuba states it is a "perpetual lease" which is not the same as transfer of ownership -- or did you all forget that tiny legal detail? Collect (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
And Puerto Rico is an separate nation in free association with the U.S., according to the governments of both countries. While you do not respect PR's right to self-determination, the U.S. government does. TFD (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, TFD. Remember when we would get annoyed at TVH accusing us repeatedly of wanting to disenfranchise island people, etc etc etc? You're doing the exact same thing here. Stop it. --Golbez (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
where in hell did you find me saying any such thing whatsoever, or is this simply a matter of your argument style again?Collect (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I will phrase it differently. Collect, do you believe that unlike states Puerto Rico has a right to self-determination? If so how is that consistent with incorporation into the U.S. TFD (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: I would like a genuine cite for the claim that the US considers PR a "separate nation" under US law. Collect (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Nobody's making that claim. However, the Insular Cases held that Puerto Rico was not part of the United States, but was merely owned by the United States. See generally Christina Duffy Burnett, A Convenient Constitution? Extraterritoriality After Boumediene, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 973, 982-83 (2009). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
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, p. 120, "The accomodation reached in 1953 stressed Puerto Rico's existence as an international entity separate and distinct from the United States."TFD (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Has it occurred to you that PR's status has been altered since 1953 - including by popular referendum therein and by Acts of Congress? Or is this article about defining the US in 1620 or 1776 or 1802 or 1861 or 1897 or 1923 or 1953? I suggest that this article is set in 2013, and your cavils seem absurd on their face. Cheers. 14:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The source I used was published in 2006 and if the status has been altered the writers were unaware. Perhaps you could point out which specific treaty, law or judgment affected the status. TFD (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Popular referendums do not change laws. It's ridiculous that this keeps emerging as some sort of argument. CMD (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with CMD on that point. I have seen nothing in the literature supporting the contention that the referendum changed the relationship between the United States and PR. Furthermore, arguing on this point does nothing for the other territories and possessions, and brings us no closer to resolving the wording of the lede. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps one should note that the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ... holds court in Puerto Rico (made on same level as other such courts in 1966 it appears)? That the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Guam? Thus making clear that the US Constitution is now paramount in both places? Such was not the case in 1922, nor had Congress enacted acts then making this clear. As for the statement that 1953 was not altered as a date in a 2006 edition of a book dealing with those dates -- that is a "d'oh" level of argument. The question is whether those territories are now subject to the Constitution directly (the cases about export tariffs to PR seem pretty much moot now). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Collect since the reference to the 1953 accomodation is prefaced, "Yet Puerto Rico remains an international issue in a number of senses, and the record reflects a certain set of international conceptions that frame the current debate," a reasonable reading is that they are referring to the current debate not history. And you need to provide a source for your constitutional theory, otherwise it is just OR. TFD (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
supported by France
Why did you revert this precision with references? The article says :The new country defeated Britain in the Revolutionary War, which became the first successful war of independence against a European empire. This sentence suggests that the United States defeated the British empire's army alone. That's false. French Navy was alone against British at the Battle of the Chesapeake and there was more French soldiers than Americans soldiers at the Siege of Yorktown. We don't speak about the United States of today, in 1778, US are colonies which have not the military capabilities of the European powers. There is no really organized army, no navy, money and the guns came from France.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Because the British also did not act alone, so it needed more discussion before unilaterally implementing. --Golbez (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not comparable, the British largely dominated their coalition and their allies were few. While on the other side, the majority of soldiers were French. Even in Continental Army there were French soldiers (see Marquis de Lafayette)--Monsieur Fou (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The various allied contributions to the American Revolutionary War does not need to be included in the lead section of this article. As I stated in my movement of content into the body of the article, to include it would give undue weight to the contributions of an ally when the article is about the entirety of the subject that is the United States; furthermore, there are entire articles that focus on the subject including the article for the American Revolutionary War which is wikilinked above.
I understand that Monsieur Fou meant well, but this article (especially the lead) is not the place to go into detail of the allied contributions towards the efforts of American independence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
False. Britain had treaties with various German states who supplied around 30,000 soldiers for service in North America, a huge percentage of total British side forces, and others for the British cause elsewhere. This source is an interesting read: (). German participation was both mentioned in and helped motivate the Declaration of Independence in the first place. Most of the local Indian tribes also sided with the British over the Americans. What's more, the UK enjoyed this allied support from the beginning, with Germans in particular fighting in battles throughout the war, while the Americans were pretty much on their own until after they captured the entire northern British army at Saratoga, inspiring the French to join. There were also more American than French ground troops at Yorktown, and certainly throughout the war (at least in North America, where the most important battles to American independence were fought). The French contribution was extremely important and is singled out for mention later in the article, but forcing it into the intro would either create a skewed impression that the UK fought alone or require mention of the various allies on both sides, making the sentence unwieldy. VictorD7 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Another editor appears to be attempting to force the issue, please see this diff. I have done enough edits, and don't want to appear to be reaching 3RR, can some other editor please revert the addition? There is already mention of allied contributions in the body of the article, and I still retain the opinion that going into unnecessary detail regarding alliances during the American Revolutionary War is unnecessary in the lead.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The ambiguous sentence bothers me more than the reference to France or to US allies. This sentence suggests that the United States defeated the British empire's army alone. That's false. It's not because the article speak only about the United States that it should suggest something inaccurate. That's like suggest that France defeated Germany during the WWI, That's false. France would have done nothing without the entry into war of the United States in 1917. This sentence seems more neutral and appropriate to the context of the American Revolution : The American Revolutionary War which ended with the victory against Great Britain became the first successful war of independence against a European empire. Excuse my poor English, it's not my native language and I don't live in an English-speaking country.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not bad, needs punctuation work, but not bad. How about this:
Sorry I didn't get back earlier. I was fine with the old phrasing (since it's true), but can live with variations along the lines y'all are proposing too. How about....
A higher court than the one that ruled in the Insular Cases
that explicitly states that the territories in question are incorporated?
If not, anything else is synthesis and original research. A third party source cannot change the extent of what a country says is part of that country, no matter how well researched it is or how many sources you have. Period. This is why I was against this sourcing game the whole time, and why you should be too. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The reason I can't follow this solution entirely is because I don't agree that the United States is the final arbiter of the linguistic meaning of the phrase "United States". Yes, we should talk about the official relationship... but it should not be our only source given there are very real political reasons for that status in particular contexts. This is why I very strongly oppose the use of statutory definition sections to argue inclusion: the reason you have to enact such definition sections is because without it, either (1) the natural presumption would be the statute has no effect in the territories and possessions, or (2) it would be a reasonable argument to make in court that the statute has no effect in the territories and possessions. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean statutory definition sections, those are worthless. I mean an explicit statement from Congress, either in a law or otherwise, saying PR etc. are incorporated or otherwise part of the country. And this isn't about the phrase United States, this is about the country United States. We aren't writing an article about what is commonly thought to be the country; we are trying to determine what that country defines itself as. And that cannot be dictated through third party sources, only recommunicated through them. For example, the Republic of China defines itself as including a very large portion of mainland Asia; we mention this, while noting that they haven't controlled it in decades, and that in 99.9% of common parlance, "Republic of China" refers only to the free area of Taiwan. What "United States" means in common parlance is different from what the United States says is part of the country. Don't get confused in trying to handle both questions at the same time. We don't need third party sources to tell us what they claim; they can do that quite ably themselves. --Golbez (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. That said, I disagree with that means of definition. Perhaps it's my background in linguistics, but I prefer to go by scholars' definitions that describe actual usage. On the other hand, the only scholarly sources that discuss the definition of "United States" that we've seen deal with the political status of the territories within the scope of the Insular Cases and similar things... not dealing with my preferred linguistic usage definitions. So... I guess I can live with what you propose, Golbez. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between "what the country actually is" and "what it says it is". Scholars can have a reasonable debate on what it controls, or even what it is (for example, Taiwan claims Mongolia but that doesn't mean Mongolia is part of Taiwan), but I don't care how learned scholars are, they cannot change what that country defines itself as. Period. There are simply some facts that are only adequately answered by a first-party source. For example, many sources say Barack Obama is a Muslim, but that is insufficient for our article to say he IS one. We can say they REPORT he is one, but he himself denies it, and third party sources certainly cannot make the man a Muslim. Likewise, third party sources cannot change how a country defines itself, in any way. They can define the level of control or legitimacy of that claimed extent, but they cannot say "Argentina has not claimed the Falklands" because that is simply false. Now, they can have argument over whether or not, legally, the Falklands belong to the UK or Argentina, but that's not what we're dealing with - we're asking, what does the United States say is the United States. Period. And unless I see a contradictory statement from a higher authority than the insular cases court, that United States consists solely of incorporated territory. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should be guided by WP:DISAMBIG. Articles are about topics not terminology. This article is about the nation called the U.S., which is defined by international law, which fortunately agrees with both U.S. domestic law and the U.N. I do not know how we could objectively determine what the term normally means when people use it. Would someone outside the U.S. say "I am going to the US, I lived in the US, I was born in the US" if they were going to, lived in or were born in American Samoa?" The only source that somewhat addresses the issue is Am Ju which implies the main definition of the US is the territory bounded by the fifty states. TFD (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It is defined by itself, not international law. International law can say that it controls another area completely, but unless it claims that area as part of itself, we cannot say that it is part of itself. Period. You're also straying here, yet again: It doesn't matter what an American Samoan would say, don't rely on proposed anecdotes like that, whether or not they would help your cause. Instead of getting distracted by all this nonsense, simply keep it simple: What does the government of the country in question say? At current, absent a source as requested, it says the territories in question are unincorporated. (And it's a separate question as to whether "unincorporated" still means "not part of", which is a little more complicated, but again, absent a higher ruling we're forced to say "no"). And by even mentioning a third party source, you're kind of sabotaging my argument while purporting to support it. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
More simply, it comes to a question of what sources do we look to when trying to define the country? I believe that looking to the meaning in common usage of the phrase "United States" when referring to the country, as found in scholarly sources dealing with linguistics or lexicography; basically, what's the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE? The problem is, I don't think there's such a source in this instance. So what's the next best means? I guess legal definitions, but which one? As Evatt held, there are a few. I think we've been getting close to accepting the Insular Cases still govern. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping to cover Evatt in the terminology section, yes. As you may recall, Evatt is the case primarily cited by both Am. Jur. and C.J.S. for the definition of "United States", and held there were at least three competing definitions depending on context. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The reason why anything is left out of this specific article is that including everything would make this article much too large, which is why we have other articles that DO cover these topics. --Jayron3201:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The elements omitted in the narrative can be included in a section of "See also", subsection wars, perhaps?
[Aside: There was once a five-editor, one-sentence consensus previously on the War of 1812, but there is considerable resistance to U.S. sources, the War of 1812 as fought over kidnapping naturalized citizens, and the Treaty of Ghent providing U.S. citizens will be respected on land and sea. The Crown stopped kidnapping U.S. citizens at His British Majesty's pleasure surely, following the only repeated defeats suffered by the British Navy in 400 years, and the repulse of victorious Napoleonic War veterans in a surprise attack at New Orleans, ordered forward during peace negotiations, of course.
Nevertheless, and be-that-as-it-may, in 1814 the U.S. and U.K. began an uninterrupted military alliance world-wide, beginning explicitly to stop the international slave trade in ARTICLE THE TENTH. "Whereas the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and Justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object." Which I thought merited mention. cheers.] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You don't find anything POV about your phrasing? Jayron32, America's early wars against France and the U.K. are probably not of great significance in a short article about the U.S., hence each is sometimes called the forgotten war. The main significance in my opinion is that they were among the few declared wars that the U.S. has entered and of course that they were against major powers. TFD (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Horsefeathers! The War of 1812 defined the very existence of Canada, and was of primary importance in the history of Canada and the northern US, the status of the Iroquois Confederation crossing national boundaries, the denial of any British claim to Louisiana (remember the Battle of New Orleans?), was responsible for the wording of the Star Spangled Banner (Then conquer we must) etc. Not of great significance? One of the odder claims I have ever seen anyone make in any talk page in the history of Misplaced Pages!
I am not saying the war was insignificant, just that it is of minimal significance for a brief article about the U.S. This is not an article about Canada or the national anthem, the Battle of New Orleans occured after the war, the right of Iroquois to enter the U.S. was settled by Jay's Treaty 1794. In other words it is important for things which are not even important for this article. TFD (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Parsing? You said it was not of great significance. We have a full sentence about "Hurricane Sandy", which, I suggest, is of less historical value by far. The British who were trying to take New Orleans did not know of the end of the war - so that is a really, truly, exceptionally weird argument to make -- the British wanted to take territory which was never British in the first place! And the Iroquois Confederation crosses national borders with Canada which the US claimed which was one of the reasons for the War of 1812 if you ever read up on that war in other than a gloss. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The scales of WP:DUE shouldn't be influenced by WP:RECENTISM. The War of 1812 is far more historically significant than Hurricane Sandy and the US involvement in Libya. I'm not saying we should give a full paragraph to 1812 in this overview article, but I think there's some balancing we need to be doing. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Collect, I said it was not of great significance in a short article about the U.S. Your views on the threats posed by the Iroquois and the British in Lousiana are greatly exaggerated and in any case nothing changed. There are still Iroquois in New York and New Orleans is still American. I agree that recentism can be a problem. Mendaliv, agree there is too much recentism. I would just point out what is significant - a declared war against a major power. TFD (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, a mention of the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War should be included, wedged in the existing sentence. They are very significant, one having a major impact on the U.S.'s relations with the British Empire, and the second (following the annexation of the Republic of Texas) saw the United States extend to the Pacific Ocean.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course, you'll not that no one is trying to wrestle your keyboard away from you as you try to add a sentence or two about any wars between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, as you note is a deficiency above. That is, if you see a problem, you don't have to file any forms to get permission to make an article better. You do know that, right? The answer to "Is there any reason why..." some aspect of a Misplaced Pages article is substandard is ALWAYS because you (specifically the person who asked the question) has not fixed it yet. So, to return to your question, if you want a better answer, to your questioon "Is there are a reason why these are left out?", the answer is because you (specifically you RightCowLeftCoast) has not put it in there" Now, if someone down the road disagrees with your fixes, we can talk it out here. But until you attempt to make an article better, you have no one to blame but yourself that it isn't as good as it could be. --Jayron3202:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd certainly support a restoration of the old War of 1812 consensus sentence. I'm not sure when it was removed. VictorD7 (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1. How did the article get the way it is?
.svg)
American C-47 aircraft during the Berlin Airlift
American and Soviet tanks facing off at Checkpoint Charlie, Berlin Wall
MacArthur observing the amphibious assault on Inchon during the Korean War
American aircraft shadowing Soviet freighters during the Cuban Missile Crisis
Brezhnev and Nixon meeting in 1973, described as a high point of detente
Reagan pledging U.S. support for Afghan mujaheddin during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Fall of the Berlin Wall
Birmingham campaign
March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom
Selma to Montgomery marches
Selma to Montgomery marches
Checkpoint Charlie, 1989
Checkpoint Charlie, 1989
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
Berlin Crisis of 1961
Cuban Missile Crisis
Korean War
Korean War
Korean War
Operation Frequent Wind
Vietnam War
Vietnam War, 1965
Vietnam War, 1966
_and_Metallurg_Anosov_during_Cuban_Missile_Crisis_1962.jpg)
.jpg)
Like as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)