Talk:U.S. state/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit on 9 March 2016 re "Policies"

This edit by Drdpwon 9 March 2016 created an incoherent list called "Policies" which violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and suggests that User:Drdpw may not understand the concepts of plenary power, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Federalism in the United States. It is also clear that User:Drdpw does not understand what the word "policies" actually means. As Mandy Patinkin said in one of his most famous movie lines: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Any objections before I take out the garbage? --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a mess. I do wonder if they meant "competencies" instead, which isn't a term generally used in the US in this context (separation of powers, etc.), so they may have been confused. Of course, one could also question the Federal Government's familiarity with the Tenth Amendment! - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

BilCat - the whole "Governments" section could use some refining. I may go ahead and remove the above mentioned bullet point list. The list doesn't really add much to the article and I can't recall a good reason for why I put it there in the first place.

Coolcaesar - the abrasive tone of your disparaging comments is not constructive. If you wish to help enhance this article, please do so, but check your incivility at the door first. Also, you may wish to look at MOS:Lists regarding how bullet lists can be used in articles.

Drdpw (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Unitary State

So how would you make it less broad [1], and why not make that edit instead of just reverting? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drdpw: I have followed BRD, but you have not. BRD counsels you to edit not revert. I edited it. You did not, you reverted two different edits. And I have been on the talk page and you have not, contrary to BRD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not about making that one sentence less broad. That one sentence added nothing constructive to the paragraph, and in fact disturbed its flow for no reason. Rather then simply adding one broad statement into the middle of a paragraph, how about developing a whole paragraph or subsection on states as unitary systems, a subject touched on in the intro. The paragraph could mention Dillon's Rule and draw from sources cited in the Home rule in the United States article. Drdpw (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Then you should have moved the edit to its own paragraph if that was your objection and discussed Dillon's Rule and any other sourced relevant content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps so; I definitely should have provided you with a prompt, detailed explanation of my action. For not doing that, I apologize. Drdpw (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"Shared sovereignty" wording

The statement each state [...] shares its sovereignty with the United States federal government is a half-truth. In actual fact, each state shares its sovereignty with the United States federal government and in some cases with indigenous political entities known as "tribes". For more info, read the article Political divisions of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.10 (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that is an important element of American state political history and present day reality. Although in important respects, the tribal areas within U.S. Senate and Congressional District boundaries also share their sovereignty with the national government in conjunction with the states as well as apart from the states. I wonder if it can be included as a footnote, addressed later in the article, or whether there is a way of introducing it into the narrative flow in an introduction about the states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2016

Near the end of the "Admission to the Union" section, the sentence that reads in part " due to a boundary dispute the adjoining state of Ohio" should probably read "dispute WITH the adjoining state..." 2601:85:C200:7360:DC32:C8C6:CAB:6C91 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Done; thanks. Drdpw (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

List format

The list of states at § States of the United States has been presented in two formats, as a table or as a list. Here are what I see as the advantages and disadvantages

• Table: Can be sorted in two ways
• List: Multi-column takes up less vertical real estate

Personally, I am a strong supporter of interactivity and so I tend to favor sortable tables. If we opt for a non-sortable format, then I don't see the reason for including the dates in the table - a simple hat note can refer the readers to List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union. But if we're going to include the date of admission, then IMO the table ought to be sortable. YBG (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. Station1 (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

However, my understanding of WP:BRD is the article should be returned to prior state until a consensus is reached. So, despite the fact that I prefer the sortable form, I am reverting it back to the form it appears to have had for a long time. I think it should remain that way until a broader consensus is reached. I don't think me and one other editor is enough to justify retaining a change that has been disputed. YBG (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's exactly correct. That would apply if the same editor who created the table and then had it reverted tried to put it back, but not when two or three unrelated editors favor something one editor opposes. But in any case, no harm in leaving it for now. Station1 (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There's already a very large table at List of states and territories of the United States. That list was split out of this article several years ago. To be honest, having any list of the states here is redundant already, but if we need to have them, a straight list is probably best. - BilCat (talk • contribs 03:27, November 17, 2016 (UTC)

Was that table split out just because of its size? If so, why not bring it back and just collapse it? It seems useful and relevant to this article. Station1 (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Partly because of size, yes, by also to give this article room to grow itself, which it has. There used to be a collapsible list and map, as shown here, but another user replaced it with the current list without discussion, so I don't know what that user's issue with it was. I'd be fine with going back to that collapsible list, with or without the interactive map. - BilCat (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I like the interactive map a lot. I would put it back along with a collapsed version of the table from List of states and territories of the United States. Most of the too-long intro to that "list" article is redundant and should probably be merged into this article. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing a table does not decrease the page size and the amount of time it takes to load. But even it it wouldn't cause the page size to approach the limits, I think it would be better to have the list in a separate article. Should have a prominent hatnote in this article pointing to that list, though. YBG (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I do like the clickable map. @Drdpw:, care to weigh in on this discussion? YBG (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but can't' till later today. Drdpw (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't referring so much to byte size as to your very legit point that the single-column sortable list takes up more "vertical real estate". Collapsing a list, of whatever type, negates that objection. Station1 (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Last spring, while adding content to this article I removed the interactive map from the "States" section. I did so because it was a large, page dominating map, and it's only unique contribution to the article was to direct readers away from it (as opposed to it being a clickable map that showed information on each state w/o taking readers from the article). So, I replaced the map and brought the hidden table out from hiding. For these reasons, I would not like to see that map restored to the article. However, I'd have no problem with restoring the Template:US statehood dates to the section, thus putting the state list "back into hiding", and placing the current map, which shows state names and capitals, just below it.

Also, on a related note, in addition to the states & territories list mentioned by BilCat up thread, there's also a table with the 50 states alone at List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union. Drdpw (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I started out wanting the sortable table, but I've become convinced otherwise. I have modified {{US statehood dates}} so that it now includes two lists, one sorted alphabetically and one sorted chronologically. As a bonus, the lists fit in five columns on my wide monitor; narrower monitors will use fewer columns. I propose that this be transcluded in the section with the current map below it, as suggested by Drdpw. YBG (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems like that template might fit better at the top of the Admission to the Union section. At the basic 'list the states' level, why are date of admission and flag the only data points? I think people might be more likely looking for population and area first, maybe even state capital. As to the map, I'm all for smaller and fewer images, but maps are an exception. The state capitals and smaller state names are unreadable on my average monitor. The larger states are barely readable. Station1 (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the food for thought Station1. I've gone ahead and made some changes to the section based on what you, YBG, BilCat, and I have discussed thus far. I removed the statehood dates from the list of states, as that information really doesn't need to be in this section (unless other information about the states were included beyond date of statehood in an expanded table format). BTW, after considering what you stated about the {{US statehood dates}} template, I don't think that it should be put back into this section. Also, after considering how difficult it in fact is to read the state & state capital names on the map that's been in place since March (even when made larger) I replaced it with the map at the top of the List of states and territories of the United States page (which is a non-clickable version of the map that used to be on this page). Additionally, to address your comment that viewers might be looking for more detailed information about the states, I changed the template at the top of the section from {{Main article}} to {{Details}} and specifically stated "for more details on each U.S. state, see List of states and territories of the United States". Be of good cheer all. Drdpw (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request–hatnote

States of the Union redirects here. Please add a hatnote to take care of this ambiguity.

{{redirect|States of the Union|other uses|State of the Union (disambiguation)}}

"States of the Union" redirects here. For other uses, see State of the Union (disambiguation).

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: I think "States of the Union" and "State of Union" are distinct and is free of any ambiguity to have a hatnote. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Thank you for your suggestion – you would need a consensus for this, and since I agree with DRAGON BOOSTER that the concept of "states of the Union" is distinct from "State of the Union", I don't see a need for a hatnote in this article. I have, however, included a See also hatnote on the redirect itself.  Paine Ellsworth  ^{put'r there}  12:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Paine Ellsworth and DRAGON BOOSTER. The concepts are obviously distinct on their face and unlikely to be confused. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Why would it be unlikely to be confused when "States of the Union" is the plural of the "State of the Union" that is given every year by the President? -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, "the plural of the 'State of the Union' that is given every year by the President" would be "State of the Unions" or "State of the Union addresses". - BilCat (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"States of the Union" is a plural for the speech.[2][3][4][5]; since it is used it the wild as such, this should carrya hatnote for it. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

While the redirect "states of the Union" and the "U.S. state" article are distinct enough to be free of any ambiguity, "states of the Union" and the "State of the Union" article are apparently not. Therefore, I will retarget the redirect to the SotU article and link my edit summary on both pages to this discussion. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to change the target of the redirect, it should really go to State of the Union (disambiguation), from where both State of the Union and U.S. state are linked. Station1 (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request - hatnote

Please add a hatnote for "American states" which redirects here.

"American states" redirects here. For other uses, see American state (disambiguation).

{{redirect|American states|other uses|American state (disambiguation)}}

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not done - Rather then add the requested hatnote to this article I have retargeted "American states" to List of states and territories of the United States and added the title to the hatnote there, which already includes "states of America". Trust this is satisfactory. Drdpw (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528025556/http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/110th.pdf to http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/110th.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615223442/http://www.museumoftheredriver.org/choctaw.html to http://www.museumoftheredriver.org/choctaw.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724193858/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/st/allstate.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/st/allstate.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031018090414/http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_GCTPH1R_US9S_geo_id=01000US.html to http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_GCTPH1R_US9S_geo_id=01000US.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030831164720/http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_GCTPH1_US9_geo_id=01000US.html to http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_GCTPH1_US9_geo_id=01000US.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox title

I don’t know why the infobox is headed with "U.S. state"; they aren’t called "U.S. States", but "states". IWI (chat) 17:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Talk:Los_Angeles#Los_Angeles_name_in_infobox. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You would normally expect the infobox to reflect the article name. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Yes but they’re not called U.S. states, so that doesn’t apply here. Unless we should put underneath "also known as U.S. commonwealth". The "U.S." is a disambig. IWI (chat) 13:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

But the article is called "U.S state" if you think it should be a disambig then suggest a page move to "State (United States)" but it would still have to be the title in the infobox so reader know they have the right article and not some other "State". I would think it unusual if "State" was the common name more likely "American State" or suprisingly US State. MilborneOne (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say "state" isn't the common name, MilborneOne. "U.S. state" is a good natural title, and a move wouldn't be appropriate. With the article title being "U.S. state", there will be no such confusion; they know what article they are reading (our readers aren't stupid). Another "follow guidelines to the death" user; as if "State (United States)" would ever be a good infobox title. Take a read of Beyond My Ken's thoughts essay. IWI (chat) 17:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with the current article title, I presume I dont think state is a common name because I am not an American. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: If you look at state articles like California, it says "California is a state", not "U.S. state". Infoboxes do not have to be the exact same as the title; I don't know why you think that. I can guarantee that not only is "state" the most common name, it is the name. IWI (chat) 16:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand but this is not usapedia so most readers would not automatically think that "state" was a political division of the united states, hence U.S. state to make it clearer. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted state-equivalents section

This article should include a section on state-equivalents. While they aren't U.S. states, their equivalency to U.S. states for statistical purposes is made clear by the U.S. Census Bureau, as well as other federal agencies (such as the U.S. Postal Service). See for example this link: https://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/og98005.pdf -- the article says "All departments, agencies, and officials of the executive branch treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a state". Articles about U.S. counties include county-equivalents, and so an article about U.S. states should include at least a mention of state-equivalents. For reference, this is the section that was reverted:

State-equivalents

Further information: District of Columbia and Territories of the United States

For statistical purposes, the following permanently-inhabited non-state areas of the United States are considered to be state-equivalents by the U.S. Census Bureau (and other federal agencies):

• American Samoa
• District of Columbia
• Guam
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Puerto Rico
• U.S. Virgin Islands

Each of these entities has one non-voting member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and no representation in the U.S. Senate. The U.S. Minor Outlying Islands (as a whole) is also sometimes treated as a state-equivalent (with the FIPS prefix "74"), and Native American tribes can sometimes be treated as state-equivalents for certain purposes (for example, Native American tribes have sub-national sovereignty like the states; they may use their own Native American vehicle license plates, and certain tribes use their own time zone). LumaP15 (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Agree for the first six territories enumerated. Especially as (a) DC has three Electoral College votes, and (b) Puerto Rico has more U.S. citizen population than the smallest TEN states . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree they are not U.S States so why mention them, if they have equivalence in other areas then those article are were they should be mentioned but I dont see why they need to be here and I dont see any reliable sources that treat them as states. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on state-equivalents

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a rough consensus in the below discussion to oppose including these territories. Although determining consensus is not merely an exercise in counting noses, there is a clear preponderance of editors opposing the inclusion and there are no policy-based reasons to discount those opinions. The limited opinions in favor of inclusion do not advance any policy reasons to include and the citations advanced in favor of inclusion have not persuaded the discussion participants. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The question is, should a section about state-equivalents be included in the U.S. states article? The U.S. Census Bureau defines 6 state-equivalents: American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Even though these areas are not U.S. states, they are treated as though they are states (for statistical purposes) by the U.S. Census Bureau, and by other federal agencies of the United States (such as the U.S. Postal Service). Those opposing inclusion of these entities argue that they are not relevant to the article, while those in favor say they are relevant. There is a previous discussion about this issue in the section above (the section entitled, "Reverted state-equivalents section"). 02:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - there is no legally-recognized category of "state equivalents": each of these has its own unique history and status. This article is about actual states, and does not include, say, Wisconsin territory either. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support a mention, though in a way that makes their status clear. They're often discussed in contexts where states are discussed and are therefore relevant enough to be brought up at least briefly in this article. --Aquillion (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Concur with Orange Mike. We already have an article on Political divisions of the United States that covers those issues in detail. This article is already a gigantic mess as is and the last thing it needs is to become even more confusing. If a user is unable to use search engines, the multiple infoboxes in this article, or the parent United States article to drill down to the existing article that already covers those issues ad nauseum, they need remedial courses in basic literacy, computer literacy, or Web browsing. Please review WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a textbook. And this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Calling them equivalents is demonstrably false. "Equivalent" means two things are essentially equal. The essence of statehood is clearly laid out in the constitution and the cited entities aren't anything like states--getting assigned a zip code does not mean you're a state. Glendoremus (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: The USCB & USPS may use the term state-equivalents when organizing their work, but the term is a misnomer. While treated as like a state for statistical and postal purposes (read in here "organizational ease & convenience"), the fact remains – these jurisdictions are not U.S. states (which is the scope of this article). Drdpw (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support: The 6 mentioned jurisdictions are first-order administrative divisions just like the U.S. states. Because they are not U.S. states, they don't belong in the list of the 50 states. However, they could be mentioned in their own section. See this link: [6] it says "Census Bureau treats IAs as state equivalents" ("IAs" means "Island Areas", which are American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands). In another link ([7]), the following was said: "States are the primary governmental divisions of the United States. The Census Bureau also recognizes the District of Columbia as a State equivalent in the economic census. The Island Areas (which include Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) are also recognized as State equivalents in the Economic Census of Island Areas."

Similar information is also at this link: [8] These 6 entities are similar to states in many ways. For example, the 5 major U.S. territories have governors just like states, they have legislative assemblies just like states, and they have constitutions (or the equivalent of constitutions) just like states. In addition, in 5 of the 6 jurisdictions (all of them except American Samoa), the people born in those jurisdictions are U.S. citizens, just like in the U.S. states. So a person born in the Northern Mariana Islands is a U.S. citizen. Even in American Samoa, they are "U.S. Nationals" (U.S. Nationality is granted at birth in all jurisdictions of the U.S.) Also, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories have congressional districts just like the U.S. states; see for example Guam's at-large congressional district. Consider also that the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories have U.S. district courts just like the states (see for example United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, which appeals to the First Circuit just like Massachusetts and New Hampshire). LumaP15 (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Sure, for statistics (census) and special obscure record/admin keeping (US postal) you can make units for comparative purposes but it remains that these are not states and no, we don't need or would want a tacked on section devoted to them in this article, which is hardly a statistics article, indeed statistics is the like the least important thing in this topic. The proposal is basically the very model of, tangential, rabbit hole, poor writing/organization. No objection to a see also link to Political divisions of the United States and Territories of the United States (Another way to say this, is the topic is already complete in coverage without the proposed addition. The proposal is basically for an entirely self-contained, extraneous or orthogonal, section addition, that is a truncated duplicate of other topics, like adding a section entitled, 'Things that are not U.S. states': '(1) List of sovereign states - 'these things are not US states but in some ways they can be compared to US states, they are called states, they have governments, a broader type of sovereignty . . . etc. etc.') No. Please, no. -- (I have added to my comment and re-signed) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - these are not states. The government and citizenship / immigration differs from the United States and is varied among these locations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment. The only U.S. territory with its own immigration system is American Samoa (the rest are part of the main U.S. immigration system). Also, the only U.S. territory where U.S. citizenship is not granted at birth is American Samoa (though, they are still granted U.S. nationality at birth, meaning they can get a U.S. passport). U.S. citizenship is granted in D.C. and the four other territories. LumaP15 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

So ... not like States in diverse ways, not even like each other. I will put a See Also for Insular area and for Territories_of_the_United_States and I think they should not in this article any more than states should be in those articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support – per Aquillion and LumaP15. It's useful for a reader of an article on states to know that things called state equivalents (DC and the territories) exist, especially since these equivalents share features with states (they're regional subdivisions of the country, have their own regional governments, are to varying degrees represented in the federal government, etc.) and are treated as states for some purposes (census, post office). Whether the section title should be "state equivalent" or something else is a separate content issue, but the information should be on the page. The section as written in the thread (which was in the mainspace article at some point) above looks pretty good to me. – Levivich 04:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose they are not U.S States so why mention them, if they have equivalence in other areas then those article are were they should be mentioned but I dont see why they need to be here and I dont see any reliable sources that treat them as states. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• I think two separate issues have been problematically conflated here: first in the prompt, and consequently in many of the following !votes. The first question is one of nomenclature: what do we call occupied U.S. territories which do not have the status of states? The actual legal/administrative term is insular area, though that term also embraces unpopulated territories. Regardless of the term that might ultimately settled upon by consensus, I think a lot of the assertiveness in the oppose !votes comes from particular aversion to "state equivalent"--which, as a matter of WP:WEIGHT, is used in too narrow a set of contexts to justify utilizing it in the manner proposed. But all of that is a separate inquiry entirely from the question of whether we mention the five populated U.S. Territories. I think clearly the article must do at least as much as to pay lip service to their existence with a few sentences of to describe the manner in which they differ in legal and political status, with generous cross-article linking and piping. That is vital information that anyone accessing this article may reasonably be looking for, or at least want to know in a survey article of the topic. In any event, we need to try to disentangle the two questions a little, because it is presenting us with a false choice between two options among many, neither of which is particularly suitable, in my view. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, I think the opposes know what is proposed is a separate section (which is in fact a separate topic) and it is not "vital" in the least to this article; it is not needed nor belongs in this article, and does not complete the article but rather sets it on a tangent. (Now, if someone wants to make a different proposal, it can be discussed in a new talk-page section perhaps, but it seems most unlikely given the comments so far that "vital" will get any agreement in any form). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, we can always ping people back to clarify their positions, I suppose. But I'd be surprised if a significant number of the !votes above were not predicated more in a rejection of the OP's specific proposal. Mind you, I'm not saying that I definitely support a new section: as far as I can tell, such a section would be largely redundant on the "possible new states" section, already in the article. I don't see what would be gained by repeating a summary discussion of those territories and their present status, which section would surely cover a lot of the same ground. Regardless, I do think it is advisable to bear in mind that there are two distinct issues folded into the OP's prompt and that, at a minimum, discussion moving forward needs to address each. Likewise, the value of the RfC is further degraded if we allow ourselves to consider only the options of 1) mentioning these state entities not all, or 2) treating their status as generally equivalent to states. Neither of those options really accords with WP:WEIGHT or what our readers might reasonably expected to find here, and there's a whole spectrum of options of other reasonable middle-ground solutions--most of which would serve better than either of those full-throated extremes. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose specifically about "state equivalents" but Support adding info about territories Statistically Equivalent just means that some data is merged for the purpose of the census. They aren't states, and not all of the ones mentioned are even incorporated territories (meaning the U.S constitution does not apply there). However, I do believe the article needs to have more information about territories in general. It doesn't need to be a whole section, one sentence in the lead will do. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The underlying problem is the poorly considered decision by someone on the MediaWiki side to not show infoboxes on Wikipedia in mobile mode. In desktop mode any intelligent user can easily cross-reference to that information through the infoboxes. So a compromise approach would be to have a single sentence at the end of the lead paragraphs merely noting that states are one type of political division of the United States, along with the one federal district and the territories (with appropriate links to all those articles). That would help clarify the distinction without running into WP:UNDUE. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve just added the sentence. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker How would you suggest I make this edit? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, not that way :) I do not get what the problem is, it seems very odd to have an article on what states are, where the lead concerns itself or lists other things. (On another level one of the issues above is misleading readers that state's and territories are essentially the same (eg. equvilant) because they are not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Alanscottwalker. The problem with such a sentence is that it needs to be extremely precise and nuanced (both in its phrasing and in its location in the article) to avoid that misleading implication. It would take an hour or two to work through those delicate issues and I don't have the time right now. Which goes back to the larger issue. We already have an article on Political divisions of the United States and Wikipedia is not a textbook. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Users above keep saying they're "not states." Nobody thinks that they are states. But they are similar to states, in that they are top-level subdivisions of US territory. It makes sense to mention them in the article, in the same way that county equivalents are mentioned in the article on US counties – as top-level subdivisions of states. Whether or not they are specifically termed "state-equivalents" is another issue. You could call them "state analogs" or "similar subdivisions" or whatever it is that you prefer. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That analogy is without merit. WP doesn't have a separate article on county-equivalents in the United States, so the article about counties is the next best place to explain that distinction. But the distinction between states, territories, and the federal district is already thoroughly explained in Political divisions of the United States. It sounds like you may be unfamiliar with WP:NOT as well as the difference between an encyclopedia and a textbook. The writing styles are quite different. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Article should stay on topic. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• No, but... (Summoned by bot) – No, per Article title policy: "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." That said, sometimes an article needs to define its scope a bit more than can be done solely from the article title, especially if there's room for doubt. The fact that we're having this Rfc, implies that there is room for doubt. So, no, we shouldn't have a section about "statelike" entities that encompasses those entities as within the scope of the article topic, but yes, we could, and possibly should, have a brief mention somewhere talking about how non-state entities are not states, as a way of clarifying the scope of the article by exclusion, with appropriate wikilinks so interested parties can find further information elsewhere about them. Mathglot (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020

please remove "is its power" under the heading

With the federal government

Another enumerated congressional power is its power is its taxing and spending power.[42] 2003:CF:747:D700:AC95:4308:B195:DB8C (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Pluralize title

The title should be in plural for consistency. Compare Provinces and territories of Canada, States of Germany and many others. I recommend States of the United States, for consistency with Territories of the United States, President of the United States and similar articles. The use of the abbreviation doesn't seem stylistically good here. Since the "S" meens "States", it doesn't really fix the redundancy either. But U.S. states would also be better than the status quo. User38453838 (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC) See also: Emirates of the United Arab Emirates, States of the Federated States of Micronesia. User38453838 (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a separate article titled List of states and territories of the United States. This one therefore should be about the concept rather than about the list. (And currently it doesn't do so well with that. I'll add some things to the article and some comments to this page.) Michael Hardy (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• The title question has come up before in reference to other articles. The other state/province/emirates articles are combination descriptive and list articles. This article is just descriptive, with the list at List of states and territories of the United States. (They used to be one article, but the list was split off by me a few years ago, as the list itself is quite long.) - BilCat (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Hardy, in what ways do you this article as not addressing the concept of U.S. State well? Let's discuss possible structural changes to the article. Drdpw (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like a discussion also. We have other articles such as State governments of the United States, which cover the topics in more detail. We need to be sure we're not duplicating those contents here, but summarizing instead. - BilCat (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The content discussion should probably go at the bottom of the talk page so it'd be easier to follow, and leave this one about the name. - BilCat (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to not move. The proposed new name is already a redirect to List of states and territories of the United States (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

---

U.S. state → States of the United States – The singular and use of abbreviation is inconsistent with analogous articles, e.g. Emirates of the United Arab Emirates, States of the Federated States of Micronesia, States of Germany, Territories of the United States. The abbreviation in the current title feels unprofessional. "U.S." should generally only be used for organizations with the abbreviation in their official name. User38453838 (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – States of the United States is a redirect to List of states and territories of the United States, other analogous articles don't have seperate articles about the state as an entity and the list of states. The abbreviation is common on Wikipedia (MOS:USA). – Thjarkur (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - the is the WP:COMMONNAME term for this topic, abbreviation included. -- Netoholic @ 03:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The editor proposing this needs to review the archives for this article. This issue has already been debated many times over the past 15 years and the consensus has always been to keep the existing name. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

There is only two discussion to rename this article to this proposed title (link: move 1, move 2; the other proposed title is "States and Commonwealths of the United States of America" and "State (United States)"). The 1st is from 2005 with the result "no consensus". The 2nd is from 2015 but only one replying and the discussion is not closed. Hddty (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Commonwealth

Michael Hardy your recent edit summary says it is taking something verbatim from a source but you don't use quotation marks, is it a quote? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a sentence that appears in the cited source. I didn't use quotation marks because I didn't assert within the article that that sentence appears there. What it replaced, and what you reinstated, says this:

Consequently, while these four are de facto states, each is de jure a commonwealth because the term is contained in its constitution.

This seems to assume that "state" and "commonwealth" contradict each other, as if it could be one or the other or something else, but not both. But it is both, and neither status is de facto as opposed to de jure or de jure as opposed to de facto. A commonwealth is a state. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker:

First, I did not replace anything. Second, if you are or were taking verbatim from a cited source, not using quote marks turns it into plagiarism. As for the rest, I am not sure what you mean, yes, these Commonwealths are U. S states, but not all Commonwealths are U.S. states (eg. Puerto Rico). Not to say that sentence can't be improved, but what do you want it to say in your own words. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I made a change, see what you think, I think the use of the word de jure was the wrong part, in some circumstances it seems not to even be true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed; each is a state of the United States of America that has chosen to use the term commonwealth, rather than state, in its official state name.Drdpw (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)