Talk:United States/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

Infobox, “Current composition” error

The info box error shows “Current composition” dating from August 21, 1959, admission of Hawaii. But Northern Mariana Islands became additional U.S. territory on November 3, 1986, when it joined "in Political Union with the United States of America" by Act of Congress. p.2, State Department doc. [1].

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is a part of the federal United States territory despite its “unincorporation” for federal taxes and tariffs, see the Canadian university publication of scholar Ellis Katz, the U.S. is “composed of” the territories p.296 [2]

Propose change info box “Current composition” to November 3, 1986, the admission of the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands in “political union” with the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Joining a political union with the United States does not mean joining the United States. And Katz contradicts your oft stated views that unpopulated territories are not part of the U.S. It is a poor approach btw to look for sources that support your view. Much better to identify the most relevant sources and reflect what they say. TFD (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

“Political union” by definition [3] would be a) the state of being united politically or b) something formed by uniting two or more things politically; political combination. If only states have joined the U.S., you must exclude DC, which our sources do not do; the U.S. historically includes states and territories in its territory. It does not follow that If territory A and other territories are a part of the U.S. as sourced, that A is not a part of the U.S. That is non sequitur. What source excludes the Northern Mariana Islands?

You misrepresent me. My view is that the five major territories are a part of the federal republic in Congress by virtue of a) their population's permanent allegiance in citizenship/national status b) increasing self-governance by republican forms and c) territory delegate Member of Congress. Some scholarly sources mention DC and the five major territories, others DC, 14 territories and citizen Indian tribes. You have no scholarly source to exclude islander citizens in the modern era. What source claims that political union by self-determination with a nation-state is not joining it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction without secondary sources is unpersuasive. If all U.S. territories are a part of the U.S. as sourced, then some (populated) U.S. territories are a part of the U.S. If there are no counter secondary sources to contradict, "The Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands is a part of the U.S. territory", then I will correct the info box error in "Current composition" because additional U.S. territory was added November 3, 1986, when CNMI joined "in political union with" the U.S. -- p.2, State Department doc. [4]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Again numerous sources have been provided that the unincorporated territories remain unincorporated and your view that if two states are in union they are really one state is OR. The U.S. is for example in political union with Palau. Furthermore citizen's of a territory always owe allegiance to an administering state without their country being part of that state as indeed Americans owed allegiance to Great Britain even though the colonies were not part of Great Britain. TFD (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ellis Katz’ scholarship (2006) is not my original research, "The American federation is composed of … the Northern Marianas” p.296 [5]. In any case, “unincorporated" territories remain unincorporated for some federal taxes and tariffs, but citizenship is no longer withheld. Your "numerous sources" phrase are not numerous sources, simply another contradiction without sources.

Palau has not U.S. citizenship by birth nor a delegate Member of Congress, (nor did colonists a Member of Parliament) it has "a free and voluntary association of ... Governments” with the U.S., see the pact [6]. What source claims the Republic of Palau without citizens and the U.S. Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands with citizens have the same constitutional status in the U.S.? The State Department reports that DC and Northern Marianas are a part of the "political framework of the United States", but it omits the Republic of Palau (item 27) [7]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So your argument is that because the Northern Mariana Islands joined in a political union with the United States it is part of the United States. But Palau, although it also joined in a politcal union with the United States (albeit of a different type) is not part of the United States, because it is not part of the United States. Do you not see the circularity of your logic? TFD (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you confound the terms related to Palau and Northern Marianas because you have no sources. The State Department reports to the U.N. that Palau is an "independent sovereign nation” (Item 88), while the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are “within the political framework of the U.S.” as is Washington, DC (Item 27) [8].

A. The Independent nation (Republic of Palau) with a pact of “association of their governments” without U.S. citizenship is not a part of the U.S. [9], — whereas B. The Commonwealth (CNMI) with "political union" and U.S. citizenship is a part of the U.S. [10] — In any case the date of Palau's pact with the U.S. is not my proposal for the info box, your misrepresentation is irrelevant.

Good faith editing requires your finding a counter-answer to Katz’ scholarship in a Canadian 2006 university press publication, "The American federation is composed of … the Northern Marianas.” p.296 [11], as of November 3, 1986 p.2 [[12]]. Your ad hominem attack claiming that sourced discussion is original research does not apply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You began this thread by saying that because the Northern Mariana Islands are in union with the U.S., they are part of it. When the example of Palau refuted your argument, you shifted back to your broken record argument that no sources have been provided despite the fact countless sources have been provided and even most of your sources contradict your conclusions. So let's back away, admit the argument you began this thread with is no longer operative, close the thread and start again. TFD (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no “countless sources” opposing, there are none in this thread to directly counter Katz’ 2006 scholarship, "The American federation is composed of … the Northern Marianas.” p.296 [13]. Palau is an example of an “independent sovereign nation” as sourced. It’s example of international agreement does not refute the U.S. domestic Commonwealth “political union” with the Northern Marianas p. 2 [14] “within the political framework of the United States” as is DC. [15]. The quoted sources support the Northern Marianas as a part of the U.S., they do not contradict the point; none oppose. Without any substantive objection, it is time to correct the info box. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't profess any expertise in this matter, but certainly the sources seem to be on the side of including the Marianas per The VirginiaHistorian. The question is one of political geography, whether the land is part of the "current composition" of the United States--there is a wikilink to List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union, but certainly, the composition of the U.S. includes the territories. If the Marianas as a political entity is part of the U.S., "within the political framework," then surely the land within its boundaries is also--even if it does not enjoy precisely the same status as other U.S. territories. I'm not aware of any contrary past usage of the "current composition" in any country's infobox. Knight of Truth (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Knight of Truth: Thank you for adhering to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia WP:SCHOLARSHIP. "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.” wp:No original research in wp:psts says it is Policy: -- "DO NOT analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; INSTEAD, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

We have no scholars to say, “U.S. territories are not a part of the modern U.S.” (each has a complicated past before late 20th century referendums and plebiscite constitutions), though some editors wp:No original research interpret century-old opinions on the Commerce Clause in a limited way to mean that territories are not a part of the 21st century U.S. in any sense, -- but they have no secondary sources for backup. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Knight of Truth, I will cite one of the thousands of sources available (Ediberto Romn, Citizenship and Its Exclusions, NYU Press, 2010, p. 97): "The Supreme Court concluded, in a series of decisions known as the Insular Cases, that [Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samos] are dependent lands and are neither "foreign" countries nor "part of the United States.""[16] The Virginia Historian has presented numerous sources that show are not foreign countries, which is a strawman argument, and the odd source that claims that despite what the U.S. says, they have incorporated these territories. The practical significance of not being part of the U.S. is that the constitution does not apply in full. Hence aliens go through immigration when they travel between an unincorporated territory and the U.S., people born in American Samoa are not U.S. citizens, nor are property rights contitutionally guaranteed, and Congress is empowered to dispose of territories, among many other things. In general however the U.S. tries to ensure that people in territories have the same rights and services as people in the U.S. American Samoans however have rejected property rights as alien to their culture, and for that reason reject birthright U.S. citizenship. Jurisdictions within the U.S. cannot opt out of parts of the constitution they find objectionable. TFD (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Insular Cases are irrelevant regarding the status of islanders they, have been superseded by Congressional statutes over the last half-century. Romn correctly reports the one-hundred year-old Insular Cases, where islanders were once withheld from both citizenship and the franchise as alien "savages". Congress has subsequently, mutually with islander self-determination referendums, provided for U.S. citizenship and national status, along with voting rights for self-governance and to elect a delegate Member of Congress, --- so they are part of the "political framework" of the U.S. in the same way as DC is, -- in the U.S. federal republic, DC and each territorial government is "largely determined by the area’s historical relationship to the United States and the will of their residents." (Item 27) [17].

The 50 states, federal district and the five major territories cannot opt out of parts of the constitution they find objectionable, as Congressional legislation and the constitution are the supreme law of the land Supremacy Clause. Territories historically have not had all the privileges of states until admission as states following a formal request by referendum or the territorial legislature to Congress; statehood has not been imposed by Congressional fiat regardless of the will of territorial residents.

The U.S. Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol declares "U.S. Citizens … who travel directly between parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), without touching at a foreign port or place, are not required to present a valid U.S. Passport or U.S. Green Card” [18]. However a valid photo ID is required for air travel within the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If what you say is true, why do people born in American Samoa not have birthright citizenship under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? And please do not digress by telling me that the U.S. Post Office delivers their mail. TFD (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

They are U.S. Nationals, subject to U.S. laws, and owing permanent allegiance to the United States. There are significant reliable sources used to verify this in the wikilink I have just provided.

There is an active effort to gain full citizenship status to American Samoans.

Here is the signing statement by then-President Jimmy Carter, when the territory was granted a delegate in Congress. This source here list American Samoa with in the boundaries of the nation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I offer a source, from the modern U.S. government with a direct quote, “parts of the United States, which includes … the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)” [19]. Now this statement on Northern Marianas is questioned by TFD without a backup source relative to — American Samoa which also is mutually in political union with the U.S. by its Constitution acknowledging the supremacy of the U.S. Congress and U.S. treaties (July 1, 1967) [[20]. But because this thread concerns the official admission date of the Northern Mariana Islands to become a part of the United States (November 3, 1986), TFDs disconnection is another non sequitur. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

RCLC, all people born in territories subject the the U.S. are nationals of the U.S. under common law. Before the U.S. revolution, all people born in the 13 colonies were nationals of the UK - that did not mean the colonies were part of the UK. Congress has also extended U.S. citizenship to citizens of four of the five populated unincorporated territories. But birthright citizenship has never been extended to the unpopulated ones. So there are no anchor babies born in the territories except for Palmyra, which is incorporated. Here is a link to the State Department manual that explains the legal position. TFD (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The American colonies are not at all relevant but the American colonists were nationals? Cite? Some were subjects of the king, but not for example African-Americans, which is why they could be enslaved. Yes, kings could have subjects in many different lands, so what. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Another TFD non sequitur. While American colonies (no taxation without representation) lacked a Member of Parliament then (as British Virgin Islands still lacks now), the modern five major U.S. territories have a delegate Member of Congress exactly as does DC, another non-state in the U.S. federal republic; the most recent addition to U.S. territory is CNMI in 1986.

TFD, your cite for the State Department’s 7 FAM 1120, explains the legal position for the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands as well, p. 2 Here. It became additional U.S. territory on November 3, 1986, when it joined "in Political Union with the United States of America" by Act of Congress. Please read the references and find applicable sources to discuss in a constructive manner. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, sorry I thought it was common knowledge that before the U.S. revolution, people born in the colonies were British subjects. Here is a link to a discussion of the law in Britain and the American Revolution, pp. 73-74. And yes, slaves were subjects too. True they were subjects of the King of Great Britain, not of Great Britain, The relevance is that citizens of external territories are nationals of the administering state. That makes sense because the territory itself owes allegiance to the other state. But it does not make the territory part of that state. The fact that citizens of unincorporated territories are U.S. nationals under common law does not incorporate those territories.

TVH, indeed the CNMI became an unincorporated territory of the U.S. in 1986 when it entered a union with the United States. Speaking of non sequiturs, yes I know that the CNMI has a non-voting delegate to Congress, their mail is delivered by the Post Office, they can join the U.S. army, etc., etc. All of that is consistent with their status as unincorporated territories.

TFD (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A 17th and 18th century "subject" is not the same as being a "national" - a national was not defined in common law, it is a later creation of statute, there was no nationalization or naturalization law in the colonies (or in Britain) and African-Americans were not subjects of the king at common law, they were "foreigners". See, Taunya Lovell Banks, "Dangerous Woman: Elizabeth Key's Freedom Suit - Subjecthood and Racialized Identity in Seventeenth Century Colonial Virginia", 41 Akron Law Review 799 (2008)

Your source does not explain anything - it does not refer to cases or statute. If you think nationals were created by statute, then please provide the statute that created them. And Nationality and Statelessness in International Law, p. 4, says, "In English the term "subject" is used as a synonym for national."[21] There actuallly were nationality laws, the one before the Revolution was the British Nationality Act 1772. If you want to argue, then please use actual facts. TFD (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Thank you. You are correct that there was a statute on subjecthood in 18th century Britain but not in the 17th century apparently. So, subjecthood was governed by statute in the 18th century (ie. one whose father is a subject). Apparently, you misspoke when referring to common law (as common law is not statute law). In the 17th century, colonies had already decided that African-Americans were not subjects by law. Your new source says the cognate for "subject" in the United States is "citizen", not "national". Most importantly, the current topic is not about the 18th century. So, 18th century law is irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Nevertheless, the British American colonial CHARTERS specified that those born there would have all the "rights of Englishmen as though they were born in England". That would include representation in Parliament. At one time Franklin spoke in London coffee houses as a colonial observer of Parliament about one representative for the entire American continent, just for the floor privileges -- a seat in the room, access to Members, ability to initiate bills, vote on committees, offer amendments to bills on the floor -- enjoyed by todays DC and territorial delegate Members of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we really talking about incorporated and unincorporated status again? Are we really discussing this out of the request for mediation? Why not pause the discussion here, and bring it to the mediation which was suppose to build consensus there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, here we are talking about the “political union” of the Northern Marianas Covenant on November 3, 1986 with the U.S. as sourced, (p.2 [22]), which made it “within the political framework of the U.S.” just as DC is, as sourced (item 27 [23]). All five territories are "officially part of U.S. territory" as well as "unincorporated" -- as sourced in a Congressional Quarterly publication (p. 649 [24]),

TFD again raises the non sequitur of limited economic “unincorporation” for some federal taxes and tariffs and pretends that contradicts the “federated United States is composed of” the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands as sourced (p.296 [25]), which it does not.

The citizenship and franchise withheld in the century-old Insular Cases have been mutually agreed to in the modern era. As one of TFD sources, Leibowitz says, "The Supreme Court has itself noted the inability of the unincorporated v. incorporated doctrine to determine judicial disputes but has not as yet been willing to formulate judicial doctrines more relevant to present day U.S.-territorial concerns (p. 114 [26]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the CNMI joined in union with the United States, it did not become part of the United States. The wording of the agreement is clear, and understood by both sides. The U.S. has added the CNMI to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Nationality law is a red herring. Citizens of dependent territories are subjects or nationals of the administering power, and the administering power may extend citizenship. Alanscottwalker, although there are nationality statutes beginning in the 18th century, nationality is based on common law. See Calvin's Case 1605, which (as the source you provided says) is the basis of both UK and U.S. nationality law. The Court decided that Calvin, who was Scottish, was an English subject. That did not mean that Scotland was part of England. TFD (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, as noted, the source I cited covered the old case law but the issue is covered in the 21st century by positive law, not 18th century or 21st century common law. And a Wikipedian's arguments concerning common law (especially 18th century common law) - by policy - certainly do not contradict "parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)" as stated by the source. [27] Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Factual error, the CNMI Northern Marianas are not on the current U.N. list of non-self governing territories, see the U.N. website [28], nor were Alaska and Hawaii removed from the United States when they were on the list in the mid-20th century. TFD has misread the chart at United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and in any case, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia.

Notice there is no secondary source which says the CNMI Northern Marianas are not a part of the U.S., but six scholars say that it is a part of the federal United States, or that the United States is composed of it. Note that all five territories are "officially part of U.S. territory" as well as "unincorporated" -- as sourced in a Congressional Quarterly publication (p. 649 [29]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I do not want to digress into side issues. The fact is that the extension of nationality, citizenship or subject status from an administering state to a citizens of a dependent state, whether by common law or statute, does not incorporate that state. No source says that and it is OR to make that claim. Indeed dependent states are treated as part of the administering state for some purposes, as are associated states, such as Palau. It would make no sense to say another country was a dependency of the U.S. if there were not some relationship between the two countries. And citizens of dependent states always have nationality of the administering state. But the reality is that under U.S. law and the statements of the executive, Congress and courts, the five populated territories remain unincorporated until Congress changes their status. Indeed, there are sources that say the U.S. is not a republic, but an empire that has incorporated the territories in violation of domestic and international law. But unless and until that becomes the consensus of reliable sources, we should not add it.

TVH, you are correct, only three of the unincorporated territories are on the list. The position of the U.S. is that the PR and CNMI are self-governing states in free association with the U.S. It is anomalous that the U.S. added Hawaii and Alaska to the list, while Canada and Australia did not add their internal territories. Also, when I provide a secondary source that says "CNMI is not part of the U.S." it is irritating when you say no such source has been provided. You may not like the source, the source may be wrong, but why do you insist that none has been provided? TFD (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The "reality" is the US Government in the source says these places are part of the US, which of course is consistent with them being territory of the US. I get that you are totally hung-up on the specialized incorporation doctrine but that doctrine does not matter editorially in the subject matter scope of this article, these places are part of the United States article, so they will be covered here as part of this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The position of the U.S. government is clear: "In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, U.S. sovereignty was extended to overseas territories. These territories (unlike those of the western United States, Alaska, and Hawaii) were not considered a part of the United."[30] Or see The History of Puerto Rico, p. xiii, "U.S. courts have ruled that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, but not part of the United States...."[31] Certainly it is treated as part of the United States for some purposes, but not for other purposes, such as the Uniformity Clause. Hence U.S. nationality law says that for purposes of this act, four of the territories, but not American Samoa, are considered to be part of the U.S. TVH concedes that at some point it was not part of the U.S. but a series of actions, such as extending postal delivery, has osmosisized it into the U.S. But other than a few anti-colonialist writers, no sources claim that, least of all the U.S. and Puerto Rico themselves. TFD (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not what they "were" it is what they are: "parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)" according to the US government.[32] The US government says it makes them parts inclusive. As for "some purposes", then they will be covered as territory of the United States, not some other nation-state. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

1. TFD factual error by anachronism. Puerto Rico (1901) is not modern PR (2015) and CNMI (2015). The territories "In the late 19th and early 20th centuries”, were not considered a part of the United States by “the U.S. courts” which withheld U.S. citizenship and voting rights for territorial governor etc. UNTIL Congress would act. But in the modern era, territories are a) mutually U.S. citizens/nationals by soil, b) in elective self governance and c) with delegate Members of Congress — not just TFDs reductio ad absurdum postal service, although domestic postal delivery to DC and the five major territories is not on its face an indication of foreign status.

2. TFD factual error by definition. Commonwealth territorial status is not the Freely Associated States (FAS) of sovereign nations with the U.S., which are Marshal Islands, Palau and Micronesia, all without U.S. nationality. The territorial constitutions of Northern Marianas cite “political union”, or the Puerto Rican cites “our union” with the U.S. and U.S. citizenship, only wp:fringe 3-5% in Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico referendums sought independence from the U.S. — why does TFD deny 95% islander self expression? That is not the U.S.G. position, nor that of scholars.

3. TFD factual error by definition. Islanders do not conform with Leninist “self-determination-as-independence-only”. Self-determination can mean a) independence, b) FAS or c) integration into a nation-state with equal citizenship without regard to nationality, religion or race. The five major territories gained equal privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship by 1988 (p. 28 [33]), — after the Insular Cases#List of the Insular Cases. Why does TFD equate modern mutual islander citizenship with postal service? That is not the U.S.G. position, nor that of scholars.

Six scholars sourced in secondary reliable publications from both Canada and the U.S. report the federated U.S. includes its modern territories. No secondary source is provided contradicting them, nor is there any sourced characterization of all six as anti-colonialist, nor is there any wikipedia restriction on schools of scholarship in any case. Northern Mariana Islands became additional U.S. territory on November 3, 1986 p.2, State Department doc. [34]. As we have it in a Congressional Quarterly source, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining 'unincorporated territories’ (p.649 [35]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to rely on the wording of "Needing a passport to enter the United States from U.S. territories", while ignoring government sources that directly address the status of the territories, not to mention the vast majority of reliable secondary sources. Even if your view were held by most sources, the fact other sources contradict it would mean we could not include it as an uncontroversial fact. And why does the link say, "Entry requirements for non-U.S. citizens are the same as for entering the United States from any foreign destination?" Do non-U.S. citizens require a passport to cross state lines?

And if they were outside the U.S. when the courts ruled on their status in the Insular Cases, you should be able to indicate when and how they became part of the U.S.

TVH, your statements are not clear. Respecting the self-determination of people in territories administered by the U.S. is not "Leninist." And again saying they are part of "U.S. territory" is a strawman argument. Of course they are. But as your source says, they remain "unincorporated", i.e., not part of the U.S. itself. Similarly, the U.S. colonies were part of British territory, but not part of Britain.

TFD (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection site is but one U.S.G. source among others and six scholarly sources which enumerate "parts of the United States” as including Guam, PR, USVI, American Samoa and CNMI Northern Marianas. You have not chosen to share any counter sources, only anachronistic statements that Puerto Rico in 1901 was judicially “unincorporated’, to mean “not a part of the U.S." in 1901, which it true, but irrelevant to modern circumstances.

Self determination of modern territories within the United States has been achieved with 95% islander choice for U.S. citizenship, elective self governance and a delegate Member of Congress under local constitutions and Organic Acts making them organically a part of the United States since the Insular Cases. Unlike modern U.S. territories, colonial governors and upper chambers were appointive, and there was no Member of Parliament for the North American colonies, another anachronistic TFD non sequitur; colonies in the British Empire (1776) are not like modern DC and the U.S. territories in the U.S. federal republic (2015) with elective self-governance and a delegate Member of Congress.

Congress has superseded the Insular Cases which once withheld citizenship and elective self-governance. Territories remain “unincorporated” for some federal tax and tariff purposes it is true, but extending the term to the entire political sphere is anachronistic. As your source Leibowitz says, "The Supreme Court has itself noted the inability of the unincorporated v. incorporated doctrine to determine judicial disputes ... relevant to present day U.S.-territorial concerns (p. 114 [36]).

Puerto Rico is now politically “incorporated” by Congress as modern jurisprudence understands that term of art, (p.1175 [37]); it is now a self-governing territory which is administratively treated by the U.S. government “as a state” since 1992 (p. 391 [38]). CNMI Northern Marianas likewise holds territorial Commonwealth status, it is a part of the "current composition" of the United States for our info box purposes, "The American federation is composed of … five major territories” (p.296 [39]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not bizarre to rely on representations of the US government that state what is part of the US. Ordinary people rely on it all the time. Indeed, they are suppose to rely on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No one would rely on the ambiguous wording of a website section "Will travelers from U.S. territories need to present a passport to enter the United States?" (my emphasis) to draw a conclusion specifically rejected by the executive, legislature and courts of the U.S., not to mention legal scholars and foreign jurisdictions. If you tried that in an essay for school you would get failing grades. Unfortunately there is no one here to evaluate your reasoning. TVH, I heard all your arguments already. Thanks for leaving out the personal attacks I had come to expect. TFD (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The United States governments conclusion is: "parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)" That's not someone else drawing that conclusion, it is the United States government. As for people relying on the US government's conclusion, they do everyday by the boatload and planeload. At any rate, you are correct that as far as I am concerned, we do not need to prolong this here, the current infobox that has stood for awhile now, no longer uses the vague word "composition."Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple contradictions without applicable sources and references to the 1901 history of Puerto Rico are not persuasive. So we have TVH, RightCowLeftCoast, Knight of Truth and Alanscottwalker supporting the info box correction, and TFD alone trying to justify excluding islander U.S. citizens in the CNMI for the modern era --- based on a superseded judicial doctrine irrelevant to present day U.S.-territorial concerns --- as explained in a TFD source (p.114 [40]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your link does not say that the insular cases has been superseded, but the opposite - the Supreme Court "has not as yet been willing to formulate judicial doctrines more relevant to present day U.S.-territorial concerns." Ironically, they were arguing for the extension of due process into the territories, not incorporation. The U.S. Supreme Court has since determined that due process extends to Guantanamo Bay, which you accept is not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am satisfied with the current infobox, that does not use "composition" and as an editorial matter just covers the most recent state admission, as sufficient summary info. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you folks ever stop and just sit back for a moment and wonder how much better life would be if you just stopped caring? It's wonderful. Listen, you are not the sole defenders of the faith. There is no great wrong to be righted here. If it is to be changed then it will be changed. But you people (and I am included in this for the bulk of the time) have been making the same arguments for years. Precisely zero minds have been changed. Precisely zero outcome has made it to the article. Why do you care so much? Are you folks just addicted to hearing yourself speak? Is it one of those situations where someone is WRONG on the INTERNET and all else must be sacrificed to correct the unbelievers? Honestly, please, tell me, why do you keep this pointless waste of time and space going. This is a genuine question - this pointless argument is reaching the point where, in my opinion, it's interfering with discussing improvements to the article. Maybe if it had had any substantive improvement to the article ever. But it hasn't. At this point it just reads as two sides arguing for the sake of arguing, and that's not going to improve anything. If Wikipedia had an ignore function, this page would both be quite svelte and quite useful. As it is, this is just a virus that spreads into anything that can be considered remotely vaguely related. This is an honest question: Why do you do it? After YEARS of pointlessness? --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Golbez agreed to change the introductory sentence to include islander citizens following a Dispute Resolution, until he didn't. Most recently when he removed territories from the lead again Seqqis Diff. [41], Golbez Diff. [42]. While varying groups of 6-8 editors form to include islanders as a part of the U.S. over the last two years, there are only 2-3 who persist in unsourced efforts to exclude them in the modern, post WWII era. The sourced majority understanding of modern U.S. citizenship as without regard to religion or race will inform the article in the face of an unsourced editor minority excluding islanders for no good reason, because Wikipedia is a sourced collaborative online encyclopedia.

Excluders hark back to century-old superseded court decisions by the Plessy v. Ferguson Court of racially motivated “separate but equal”. That decision was superseded by the Courts and Congress in the post WWII modern era. Scholars likewise describe Insular Cases of that Court as racially motivated, and those cases have likewise been superseded by Congressional, Court and mutual islander actions voting 95% for political union with the U.S., including citizenship, elective self governance and delegate Member of Congress. Misinformation and misdirection abounds. TFD last implied Congress has not extended due process to the five major territories to supersede the Insular Cases, yet one of his sources says, "Among the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are due process and equal protection. Both rights apply to the five larger insular areas." (p.35, [43]).

Editors base their opposition to inclusion on the same Insular Case doctrine of "incorporated v. unincorporated" which is irrelevant to present day U.S.--territorial concerns (p.114 [44]). Insular Cases are still good law for domestic taxes and tariffs, but the judicial doctrine is not relevant to inclusion of U.S. citizens in the federal republic. The lead description should reflect the U.S. federal republic as composed of U.S. citizens/nationals represented in Congress, including DC and the five major territories with delegate Members of Congress -- consistent with modern post WWII history as sourced by six scholars and U.S.G. sources. Existing inequities should be addressed. The info box should include U.S. territory area as sourced by the Census, the info box "Current composition" should include the most recent U.S. territory, CNMI the Northern Marianas as sourced by the State Department, and the subject of this thread. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015

"Law enforcement in the U.S. is maintained primarily by local police departments. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is the largest in the country. While simultaneously being the most racist. [327]"

Need: Remove part about racism. 19Hector97 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done The addition has been reverted. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence source

The current U.S.G. view of itself as reported to the U.N. Human Rights Committee is,

"The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions." Item 22 [45].

This U.S. “Common Core Document” of 2011 views these constituent elements as constitutionally “within the political framework of the U.S." (item 27 [46]).

This conception of the U.S. in the 21st century is backed up by six scholars in law journals, university press monographs and Congressional Quarterly, G. Alan Tarr (2005) "encompasses” (p.382 [47]). Ellis Katz (2006), "composed of" (p.296 [48]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), “a part of ” (p.1 [49]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “the US includes” (p. 231-232, [50]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), "officially a part of” (p.649 [51]). Earl H. Fry (2009), “U.S. federal system” (p.297 [52]).

Is there any objection to using this U.S.G. source to copyedit the lead sentence as User:Seqqis tried to do earlier to add modern era U.S. territories? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No competent researcher would use a report on human rights as a source for constitutional law. Again, some scholars do say that the U.S. has incorporated its overseas territories, but weight requires us to follow the broad consensus of experts. TFD (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you know why the Bill of Rights is called that? EllenCT (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights is part of the constitution. It applies in full to the United States and in part to areas under US jurisdiction, such as Puerto Rico, Guantanamo Bay and Bagram Air Base. We do not look at the Bill of Rights to determine what areas are part of the U.S. And the report provided is not part of the U.S. constitution. TFD (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that no competent resercher wouldn't use the report as a source. Cause who's to say that the one(s) who wrote the report doesn't have knowledge on weather the territories are part of the US or not. And these links ([53], [54], [55], and [56]) that also states that the territory, Puerto Rico is part of the US. Seqqis (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

oh god the mediation is leaking again please make it stop. is it really so utterly impossible for you people to consolidate discussion in one segregated place so we can actually work on improving the article without you sucking the air out of the room? --Golbez (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to bar Seqqis edits just because he is not a part of a three-month mediation. Jimbo Wales Statement of principles 3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.” — This discussion is to improve the article by overcoming an omission which is repeatedly challenged, most recently by Seqqis.

The issue is political, it's not about arcane judicial terms of art. Congress (a political branch) has gutted the judicial “unincorporation-1901” for the five major territories in the post-WWII modern era. The Insular Cases once held that “alien” islander populations of 1901 were “dangerous” to the American republic if they became politically active. But what was once judicially withheld is now mutually superseded by Congressional action and islander plebiscites, including citizenship, elective self-governance and delegate Members of Congress. Wikipedia country articles should not be governed by anachronisms.

Here is a rough timeline of increasing political activity in the non-state territories from Wikipedia sources:

District of Columbia 1801 citizenship, 1975 elected mayor, 1971 delegate Member of Congress

American Samoa -- 1904 nationals, 1978 elected governor, 1981 delegate Member of Congress

Guam ---------------- 1950 citizenship, 1972 elected governor, 1973 delegate Member of Congress

Northern Marianas 1986 citizenship, 1978 elected governor, 2009 delegate Member of Congress

Puerto Rico 1952 mutual citizenship, 1948 elected governor, 1901 delegate Member of Congress (Resident Commissioner)

U.S. Virgin Islands 1927 citizenship, 1970 elected governor, 1973 delegate Member of Congress

While territories remain “unincorporated-2013”, --- in a “domestic sense” for a remnant of internal tariffs, domestic taxes and non-fundamental provisions ---, the State Department ALSO reports that the U.S. constitutional "political framework” now includes DC and five major territories. Simple ad hominem attack by TFD does not answer the sources provided. The article is improved for the general international reader with a lead sentence which reflects the United States of the post-WWII modern era, and that includes territories and possessions as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed some people believe that all the territories are now incorporated and therefore for example the current tax code is illegal. But we are supposed to reflect accepted opinion rather than determine whether they are correct. TFD (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We are supposed to summarize the reliable sources, and reliability is a determination of likely correctness. We are not supposed to rely on opinions or editorial position statements because they are much less likely to be correct. But, we could cite a survey by a competent polling agency reporting their results with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy on the question of the proportion of Americans who knew that Northern Marianas had a congressional delegate. Count me in the group who doesn't know whether they still do. I feel like I should care, too, but I just haven't gotten to that on my list of things about which to care. EllenCT (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised that you are not aware of the issue. In the late 19th century, the US experimented with imperialism, when they subjugated nations such as the Philippines. None of these nations were treated as part of the US and after WW2 the US accepted their right to self-determination. Under US law they were not part of the US, and so the Constitution did not apply in full. American Samoa is adamant that it should not because "property rights" is inconsistent with their view of community. However, the Supreme Court has decided that fundamental rights, such as habeas corpus, apply to all areas under US control, including Guantanamo Bay which is part of Cuba but controlled by the US. TFD (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Guantanamo detainees are not U.S. citizens with a voice in Congress; another non sequitur. The Insular Case “unincorporated-1901” is gutted as a matter of historical fact, so that a federal judge can say by 2008, “[Congress’] sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory [of Puerto Rico].” [57]. Surely this expert must be considered in the balance with no counter-sources to exclude territories.

Today’s delegate Members of Congress, have more privileges than those from “incorporated” Alaska and Hawaii territorial delegates before their statehood. They have floor privileges to initiate and cosponsor bills, committee and party caucus voting privileges, appoint to the service academies have offices and allowances that Representatives from the states have.

Territorial legislators in Congress are DC Norton and (1) American Samoa’s Faleomavaega, (2) Guam’s Bordallo, (3) Northern Mariana Islands Sablan, (4) Puerto Rico’s Pierluisi, and (5) Virgin Islands’ Christensen. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You said that because due process applies to Puerto Rico it is part of the U.S. but although it also extends to Guantanamo Bay, Guantanamo Bay is not part of the U.S. because Guantanamo Bay is not part of the U.S. Do you not see the circularity of your argument? TFD (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, due process in PR guarantees that Congress cannot arbitrarily end the territorial relationship, and at 5% plebiscite vote for independence, that prospect is unlikely. Internal self determination — political union with a larger nation-state --- requires human rights, elective self governance and participation in national councils.

Puerto Ricans have rejected independence at 95%+ five times, they have chosen political “union" with the U.S. — as it reads in the plebiscite approved PR constitution. This “internal” self-determination in the modern era, includes mutual citizenship since 1952, elective self-governance, and a delegate Member of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The seven expert sources include U.S. citizen/national islanders in the modern era, including U.S. self-reporting, although "some people" discount the U.S. as a source because they believe it is illegitimate. We should not account for that wp:fringe view as generally accepted scholarship. The “unincorporated” status is not relevant in the modern era for an international reader seeking to understand the national jurisdiction, political framework or the geographic sense of the United States in the lead sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Golbez, lets keep this in the mediation please. If others wish to join it, I am sure they can ask the mediator.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to revert to out of date, inaccurate 2009 descriptions of 2008 recession (RFC)

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.

The consensus is to include both in some form. AlbinoFerret 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

---

There was no consensus at Talk:United States/Archive 67#Proposal to revert section Income, poverty and wealth to to 13 January version for this revert making the following change, because seven editors supported the 8 February version but only three supported the revert.

8 February version	13 January (and 9 February) version
The highest 10% of income earners pay a majority of federal taxes, and about half of all taxes. Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy.	Between June 2007 and November 2008 the global recession led to falling asset prices around the world. Assets owned by Americans lost about a quarter of their value. Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion. At the end of 2008, household debt amounted to $13.8 trillion.

References

Which version presents a more accurate, pertinent, current, and comprehensive summary of the United States economy?

The thought that we should replace items of current controversy with 2009 descriptions of the 2008 recession seems almost laughably absurd to me. I had proposed that we also include the proportion of taxes paid by those with the most wealth, not just the most income. As you can see from Figure H on page 164 here, the wealthiest do not generally hold most of their assetts in current income generating investments, so they are generally not subject to taxation at the levels approaching those of the highest income earners (who are generally corporations rather than individual people anyway.) EllenCT (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus for removing the content, while there was a consensus for reversion. This can be seen in the archive. As can be seen it had received the support of VictorD7 & PointsofNoReturn, and only opposed by the single editor EllenCT. Therefore, since there does not appear to be a change in consensus, and the section was changed boldly, I will per WP:BRD undue the change by EllenCT. Please let us discuss this rather than letting this devolve into an edit war.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That section shows no such consensus. Seven editors supported the earlier changes in January. What are your reasons for keeping the 2009 articles on the 2008 crash? They are long out of date, and their summaries which you've replaced are now flatly wrong by trillions of dollars. You yourself originally proposed describing the tax incidence, in a far less accurate wording which suggests you lack familiarity with the difference between income and wealth. EllenCT (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I support the 8 February version.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Ellen's change, for reasons given in the earlier section. VictorD7 (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Which specific reasons? I see none stated. The 2009 descriptions of the 2008 crash have long been wildly inaccurate. EllenCT (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You've seriously already forgotten? Aside from it being a niche soapbox topic that doesn't belong on this broad summary page, your proposed addition wording is an unacceptable NPOV violation. You're stating a controversial opinion in Wikipedia's voice. And what the hell is an "economic elite"? It's vague, demagogic language that doesn't belong in a high quality encyclopedia article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose the 8 February version, which contains editorial content in the voice of Wikipedia. It would be better if this RFC had been structured to keep the Survey and the Threaded Discussion separate. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Which specific content do you consider editorial, and how would you rephrase it in the voice of the source(s)? Do you believe the 2009 articles on the 2008 crash are still accurate? EllenCT (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Aren't these apples and oranges? Why substitute a discussion of tax rates with one on assets? If both statements are well-sourced, why not include them both? that said, it may be true that most taxes are paid by the wealthy -- have not looked at the references -- but the statement is very misleading and much abused by the Fair Tax crowd. Elinruby (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the oranges are off by $27 trillion dolars, and in the wrong direction, and have been for years. EllenCT (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand the point you are making. If you are trying to measure affluence, yes, wealth may be a better measure than income as a lot of the wealthiest americans do not receive a salary per se, I understand. But I do not understand why you these sets of statements are in any way equivalent. One is taxes, one is assets. (?) Is your point that the tax system is unfair? Perhaps, but you seem to be getting close to original research and while I *like* wonky stuff, if *I* am having trouble deciphering your point this may be a sign of something....Elinruby (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just saying that "household wealth is down $14 trillion" and the other similar statements need to be brought up to date, but I'm not sure how. "... was down $14 trillion but has since regained and as of 2015 is up $14 trillion over 2006 levels"? EllenCT (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Two sentences? This happened. Now, this happened. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Include both Agree with Elinruby - why not include both. Darx9url (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Definitely Include both. Both are well sourced encyclopedic content. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Include something along the lines of both the one is out of date, and the other, I take can include attribution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  The most we should include along the lines of Ellen's proposal is something brief, vague, and neutrally worded like "There is a debate over the extent and relevance of wealth and income inequality", followed by a couple of representative sources from each side. If necessary I can supply economic references challenging hers. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  Please do. EllenCT (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2015 (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.

The link for note 'c' in the infobox does not work

The "^" link for note 'c' in the infobox, which appears to be trying to link to the "Area" stat in the box, is currently not functional.

 Fixed and thank you.--Chamith (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)